Indigenous spirituality and Paganism/Wicca/Witchcraft et all [LONG]
Synnoveah J Cooke
>"Tamara Eddy" <tam...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>
>Ok, since nobody seems clear on the concept of "stolen" I will try to make
>my stand clear. I have acknowledged that dominant cultures have tried to
>wipe out the cultures that they dominate. The people whose culture was
>destroyed were robbed of their culture, it was taken away against their
>will. If this is what Cat means by ling me and my culture a bunch of
>thieves, fair enough. My culture wasn't the first and wasn't the last to do
>it, I personally haven't done it, I refuse to have any personal guilt over
>the fact that it has happened.
>
>But what it seems (to me at least) Cat was saying is that we've gone and
>knocked of her culture for our own nefeous uses, and therefore have somehow
>taken away something special from her culture, and continue to do so.
>
>As you may notice, I disagree with that arguement because I don't agree that
>anyone can lay property rights (ie, its mine, you can't have it, and I
>reserve the right to dictate how its used) to an *idea* or *concept*. That
>some twit comes along, misinterprets, misunderstands and misuses concepts
>derived from her culture is unfortunate, but I believe that that is a
>different can of worms than *theiving*.
But can you see how when those who take and change that information
and call it Native..how that can be considered stealing?
>
>I want still want to know exactly what was stolen and how, if Cat
>acknowledges that ideas have been exchanged since "forever". What was taken
>without her culture's consent when AFAIK, an idea can't propogate unless one
>person finds a way of communicating that idea to another?AFAIK, no Westerner
>can suck brains, and no Westerner has stuck a knife to a Native throat and
>said "tell me all you know or I'll kill you". *Then* I could understand how
>she could feel that ideas had been taken against someone's will, but
>clearly, what "we westerners" know of her culture - indeed any culture - is
>already out there in books, on TV, on the internet. That parts of that
>information may be wrong is not *theft*, its just plain misinformation and
>happens to everything, not just in information about native cultures.
No but the "whites" she speaks of may of observed and then gone and
taken those ideas and in the tradition of her Native culture, change
it, perverted it and called it Maori, then yes, I could understand how
she might call that thievery. Would I scream all whites have done
this? No, because Im sure there are many in the Western World who are
absolutely ignorant of who her people are. Like myself.
>
>If I may invoke Meme theory at this point, there is already a heck of alot
>of "native culture" memes out there already. They are mutating as well as
>converging and splitting with other memes out there. People look at the bank
>of memes available to them (some may choose to get a wider selection of
>memes by doing research), compare them to their own stock of memes and
>continually swap new memes for their old ones inthe continual search forthe
>best set of memes available. They are just *memes*, none are more sacred out
>there in Memespace, none have inherently better value - the only thing that
>makes one meme better than another in meme theory is that that particular
>meme is held by more people, and stays as the preferrable mean when it is
>compared to others in it sown category. The only way to prevent memes from
>mutating and preventing bundled memes from changing peices is to not put
>them out into memespace at all. Keep them secret, don't tell people, and
>make sure that all the people who have that set of memes are prevented from
>swapping their memes with others who may put the 'sacred meme' into
>memespace for everyone to pick over. That is extremely isolationist, but it
>does work. But once a meme has gone feral in memespace, it isn't ever going
>back to domestication, its going to mutate, get new parts, lose old ones etc
>until it is either the dominant meme or until it dies out. Memes can be
>foreced upon people "believe what I do, or die", but if memes are allowed to
>flow naturally, eventually the ones that most people prefer/find
>beneficial/somehow work will dominate, while the weaker ones flounder and
>die. By adopting a new meme - from wherever it originates - is not theft,
>its merely memes doing their stuff, a new and "better" idea is adopted and
>the old discarded.
New and better idea to whom? Isn't that about respect? The originator
may not feel it is a new and better idea to come of their original
idea. In fact, they might well feel you have stolen from them and
given it some new face at their expense and then taken credit for it,
and if it doesn't work, well then you can always say..Hey..its from
*that* culture.
Whether we should acknowledge the source of the meme is a
>different discussion, but if the meme is there and is a better meme than the
>one we already have, its not even a concious decision to adopt it, it just
>happens. And that is not theft, that is the evolution of ideas.
I disagree with you. I know that if you hang out with people, you
sometimes adopt their mannerisms and such. Imitation is a form of
flattery idea etc. But to take something that is spiritual that you
truly don't get the soul or essence of and try to imitate it, change
it to suit your purposes is not flattering to the originator of the
said concept. In fact, depending on how important this concept is, it
may be the most gross insults you may perpetrate.
>
>> > > This is not the same thing when we have laws and rules which you don't
>> abide by,
>> > > simply because we are native and you are westerners. Exchange has
>> ALWAYS been
>> > > apart of human dealings, but so has theft - and that's a difference I
>> repeat you
>> > > are not clear on.
>> >
>> > *What* has been *stolen* (ie, taken without permission). Did someone
>> > sneak up and suck your brains while you were sleeping? Or is the real
>> > problem that we have adopted some ideas that were based of your ideas,
>> > and now you don't like what ideas we have, and what we have done with
>> > them?
Ok..so if I post something afore someone else..and they come along and
essentially say the same thing..Are they stealing my words or ideas?
No..however, if they use my words to their own means to an end and
then say it is their spiritual culture..yes it would be theft. Rather
simplistic, but hey..
>> >
>> > Or is it that you feel that instead of a fair swap, we got more ideas
>> > from you folk than you got from us?
>
>Yowie
>
Ow..I didn't get that anyone was inferring that..Id love to see the
egos wiped out here and lets have an earnest discussion and exchange
of ideas without the anger and ego thrown in..I know..probably
impossible for any human to do..I often get pretty pissy about some
posts too.
*~~*
Synn
*~~*
"D'aithle na bhfileadh n-uasal, truaghsan timheal an tsaoghail."
[Now with all the High Bards gone, sad is the waning of the world.]
*~~*
Catherine Karena
William Woody wrote:
> "Yowie" <yowi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Ok, since nobody seems clear on the concept of "stolen" I will try to make
> > my stand clear. ...
>
> Bang bang bang bang [sound of my head hitting the monitor]
>
> Okay, as the concept of "cultural theft" is an indigenous one, let me
> define it from the perspective of the California Indian (as I understand
> it).
>
> In a tribe, a child is responsible for his own upbringing. Stories are
> told around the campfire which outline the nomative moral structure of a
> family group, so there is cultural cohesion through those stories. But a
> child is expected to make his or her way through the world with as
> little meddling from the adults as possible.
Same here.
>
> The concept of a parent living his life through a child (as is common in
> the dominate culture of the United States) is highly offensive to a
> California Indian.
Same here.
> Of course the child is not tossed to the wolves; children are played
> with, fed, kept warm and safe, cared for and watched after by the
> parents and by the entire village. But no-one would ever dream to go to
> a child and say "you are going to be a hunter", or "you are going to be
> a basket weaver." Instead, the child is given free reign to find his or
> her path through the world, and if the child should go up and watch a
> boatmaker at his craft, the boatmaker may pause a moment to show the
> child what he is doing.
Same here.
> To tell someone how they can or cannot go through the world is theft.
> It's theft of that person's right to choose for himself/herself. Of
> course there are limits: tribal heads were responsible for keeping the
> peace and preventing the inevitable fight or misunderstanding. And of
> course there is great shame (as told in the stories) not to contribute
> to the welfare of the tribe in some way. But if a child wants to learn
> how to make boats, it would be considered theft of that child's path if
> an adult were to scoop him up and say "no, you have to learn how to make
> baskets."
Same here.
> This is related to the idea of cultural theft.
I'd call that something different. Pakeha ways are very different .
> If you were to go out and represent yourself as a Salinan Indian, and
> tell people that Salinans painted their faces red and danced around the
> fire using drums, it steals from me. It steals from my time as I have to
> spend it explaining to people that you are not Salinan and therefore
> your statements are false. It steals from my identity in that it makes
> it harder for me to move through the world on my path without being
> questioned by your followers. It steals from my energy in that I waste a
> lot of it explaining (as I am now) the nature of California Indian
> culture, or that drumming was considered offensive, or that California
> Indians did have an economy with money (in the form of beads) or
> whatever.
>
> That's cultural theft.
Agreed.
> Now in the last few years a number of indigenous groups have taken the
> idea of "cultural theft" meaning "intellectual property theft." And
> while there is some validity to this idea, the basic concept of
> intellectual property (or rather, the idea of owning an idea) was
> foreign to California Indians. You can't steal an idea.
If you look at the submission they're trying to put through to the UN, I think
that term of 'intellectual property theft' in terms of the property being
tribal/people owned - is an approach taken because it's understandable in the
Western context. In our culture everybody is a guardian of the whole - everyone
owns if you can say that the Land for example (although that idea of ownerships
doesn't fit) - rather you have a responsibility for a certain area - for various
things. It is wrong to steal that responsibility from another. Outsiders just
arent qualified - particually when it comes to knowledge - they aren't qualified
to teach it - the responsibility is anothers.
And that's the main point people are missing, and it is a common arrogance in
Western culture to think because they can re-interpret something to 'make sense'
of it, that they 'understand'. They don't.
> But you can steal parts of someone else's life.
>
> And if you want to get nitpicky, that's where I depart from Catherine
> Karena: her idea of theft seems to stem from the concept of intellectual
> property theft. My ideas come from California Indian traditional
> concepts of theft of experience, related above.
Actually you don't know where I'm coming from Woody. What you shared with above is
very similiar to how Maori educate their children. If you exchanged the
"Californian Indian" for "Maori" there's little difference in thinking. But when I
am talking to Whites - I try to relate in terms that they understand. Although
let's face it I haven't 'shared' much --I'm enquiring. I haven't identified fully
what I think of as cultural theft. That's not what I'm here for.
> ... I have acknowledged that dominant cultures have tried to
> > wipe out the cultures that they dominate. The people whose culture was
> > destroyed were robbed of their culture, it was taken away against their
> > will. If this is what Cat means by ling me and my culture a bunch of
> > thieves, fair enough. My culture wasn't the first and wasn't the last to do
> > it, I personally haven't done it, I refuse to have any personal guilt over
> > the fact that it has happened.
Unfortunately I'm only getting 1 out of 3 posts showing up on my newsgroups for
alt.religion.wicca.moderated. If you reply to me I'd appreciate a CC: to my email
as not only mine but other emails aren't showing. Yowie's post didn't show up -
Yowie, I'd appreciate that forwarded, thanks.
A point I'll make on Yowie's comment is no, you shouldnt be guilty for the acts
that you didn't participate in. But if you think times have changed that much, you
are very much mistaken. For example, it was only 14 or so years ago that the
practise of taking Aboriginals children stopped. In all that time and even really
until very recently the last 2 -3 years or so - what White Australian got up and
said it was wrong? Land is still being removed and there is a new form of 'taking'
happening that frankly your attitude supports.
> See, I depart from this concept of "theft by wiping out a culture"--because it
> does not permit a person from a traditional background
Woody, when you wipe out a people there is no one left to move on. The point I
made to Yowie is that over 90 percent of Australian cultures were wiped out - ie
the People irradicated, genocided, killed off, kaput gone - never come back. Hence
that unique culture GONE.
> the right to move in the world and borrow modern concepts as he sees fit.
Woody, I come from a sea going culture that traded, discussed and moved around
every people that went through, lived on, by the Pacific, Australia, New Guinea,
Americas - change, learning was a constant thing. We learned continually then,
nothing has changed now. Generally speaking there is a 'white myth" that cultures
are static and there is a divider between 'traditional' and 'modern'. I think
that's just part of the Pakeha dual mindset. Maori/ Polynesian culture was never
static in the first place. Maybe so many of them coming from land based cultures
- it creates that mentality, some of those English people used to stay put for
centuaries. But it doesn't work for us. It's not our history. And I find that
outsiders tend to speak from THEIR history as if it was the standard, when
relating to ours that is very different.
> That is, by presuming that natives would want to preserve their culture is a
> form of experiential theft--it makes it harder for me to (say) shop at Ralphs
> instead of picking acorns, buy a Miata instead of walking on moccasins
> everywhere, own a house instead of li ving in a mud hut, or use a clothes washer
> instead of beating my skins on a rock by a river--as I'm now faced with having
> to justify my choices to people
> who think I should pick the primitive instead of picking comfort.
It depends on what your culture is. Our culture doesn't revolve around 'things' or
around the 'outward appearance', around 'ariticles' etc. Our culture revolves
around that which 'stands under' the physical world.
Eg Kahungunu are well known as a networking tribe - they networked with every
other iwi, and tend to work to create kinships with people we've known for
centuries eg we married back into the Pacific coast line Indians in Americas,
Asian, Aborigine etc. We have always been interested in diseminating information -
particularly forms of education - everywhere. Hence it is natural to our culture
to take a great interest in Computers and Internet - that IS an expression of our
culture. To the whites the 'accusation' is made we are 'assimilated'. Not
according to our frame of reference we are not. Hence you will find in Aotearoa
that there is a movement to put Pcs and Internet into all the Marae . Maori are
going to be Maori whatever environment we find ourselves in.
> That's what I ment in another post when I said that if a culture should "die" in
> the eyes of another, it dies. Who cares?
I don't think I got that post Woody do you mind forwarding it to my addy? I'd like
to reply to that.
> Because fundamentally telling me I should spend my time making sure my culture
> doesn't die (and then projecting onto me what that culture should be, rather
> than what it is--a set of experiences learned at childhood and a set of choices
> that *I* made), you're engaging in the very sort of experiential theft that also
> drives my understanding of
> cultural theft.
What you do amongst your people is your own business. But Maori - and I can say
this for a surety regardless of what Iwi are intensely concerned with the
preservation and dissemination of our teachings, language and culture to our
children and also to Maori alienated from their roots. Particularly given the
inherent unhealthiness of Western culture for a person's well being. It's needed.
> > But what it seems (to me at least) Cat was saying is that we've gone and
> > knocked of her culture for our own nefeous uses, and therefore have somehow
> > taken away something special from her culture, and continue to do so.
The name by the way if you wish to abbreviate it is "Kat" it's actually Kateraina
because people can't pronounce it I use Catherine amongst whites or Kat is easy.
And your interpretation of what I'm saying is askew.
I'll come back to this later.
> > As you may notice, I disagree with that arguement because I don't agree that >
> anyone can lay property rights (ie, its mine, you can't have it, and I reserve
> the right to dictate how its used) to an *idea* or *concept*. ...
Well, this where we part company eg Ta Moko is something that gets appropriated by
Whites and Pagans. It's like something they hone in on. Here's something that
attain you would spend something like 6 months to a year maybe before what is to
be tattooed on your face is even designed. As you list your achievements, consider
your life story, go around to the rest of your family and extended tribe to
confirm, consider or consult with what you are entitled to wear. The whole process
of Ta Moko is sacred. The artist spends a lot of time to pull together the symbols
and integration of these symbols - to tell the story of this one's life. And then
you get some (usually) Yank (although the Germans are going bonkers over it) who
finds a picture of a Ta Moko individual and unique to that person and iwi and
plasters it on his own face, with some bastard mix of Celt or whatever.
No, I'm sorry it isn't his right to take honours that he hasn't earnt. And is
intrinsic to our identity. Particularly when you ask the bastard why he's doing so
- he happily prats he's showing 'respect' and appreciation of our culture. That he
'identifies' with our culture. And that he is free to do as he damn please. Along
with taking Ta Moko, you have such behaviour with a backdrop of :
- Setting yourself up as an authority on a culture not your own, disseminating
falsehoods on a huge scale which you as a white have more finance to do. Such that
you have outsiders 'correcting' you on what is proper "maori' behaviour or custom.
- Most of this behaviour seems to be a continuation of history - the practise
westerners have of taking souvenirs from others - there is no respect involved.
Often it is done to show off something 'unique' and 'pretty' or 'cool' to others.
There is absolutely no concern that he's trivilising something sacred to another.
- There is always an attitude that our culture is in 'things'. When you actually
offer a fuller picture of what your culture is out - I'll tell you right now few
really want that. They are there for the 'toys'.
- This is done on a backdrop of continually defining the identity of another - in
terms that is demeaning. And also in such a way that you create a 'non-listening'
or a blindness of hearing or seeing what there is to offer of real substance from
that people, because you have made them 'tribal' or 'simple' . There is almost a
'programming' .
EG - In the news, when a Maori boy developed a means of removing, oil and tar from
a river stream - he's described as a "New Zealander", a Maori girl last week about
12 years old has been running her own Maori design clothing business thats
hittiing big time, again she is a New Zealander, the Maori haka done at the
Commonwealth games the Whites over there loved it - it becomes "the New Zealand
Haka. BUT when there is anythig that Whites and it seems you think likewise Woody,
that is identified 'traditionally' Maori - then the people involved are "Maori"
and of course when any Maori does a crime that person is identified as "Maori.
So the definition of Maori - the backdrop is "traditional" and "alcoholic,
criminal, poor etc". The Pagans in acting with Maori culture for example on their
websites - reinforce the stereotypes of "traditional Maori"as they define it
'tribal' etc. And if you speak to them, they treat you as if you are living
sometime 200 years ago.
I NOTICE that in the main that is in fact the Western world that in the main act
this way. The Wananga Aotearoa sends out those who have learnt there skill into
different countries to cross skill - share the 'how' of their designs and
techniques. For example the spiral work that is so common, we'll show how that is
done, etc. On this board everyone it seems to identify that as 'appropriation' and
that's not what is being said. It's really odd.
What's really interesting even on this newsgroups (unless it's being said in the
posts that aren't showing up) - is that it's completely ignored the fact that
Maori for example and many other Native American nations we've worked with on
various projects - do want various teachings and ways disseminated out there.
What's interesting is those things are in the main NOT wanted at all. They want
the 'toys', they want the pretty feathers, the pennants. They like the idea of
finding a nother peope they can say is 'less' than them. They like the idea of
becoming an authority on someone else without qualification.
Kat
Yowie
news:woody-71EADD....@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> "Yowie" <yowi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Ok, since nobody seems clear on the concept of "stolen" I will try to
make
> > my stand clear. ...
>
> Bang bang bang bang [sound of my head hitting the monitor]
>
>
> Okay, as the concept of "cultural theft" is an indigenous one, let me
> define it from the perspective of the California Indian (as I understand
> it).
I'm sorry you are banging your head on the table William, but in all
seriousness, how on earth was I supposed to know this when I am not a
Californian Indian, indeed, not from what anyone would consider an
"indigenous culture"? (although I am 100% English as far back as I can
trace, but I don't think that counts).
It sorta like me asking "Why do Americans rape everyone?" when I know that
most English speaking people would interpret that statement "Why do all
Americans have non-consentual sex with everyone" but *I* mean it as "Why do
Americans seem more willing to have casual sex with each other." I think all
Americans would get very upset with me, and it won't help much to bleat
later "but thats not what I meant". Perhaps the misunderstanding, if indeed
it is one (I don't know what Cat meant by "cultural theft" as opposed to
"cultural exchange " which she approves of) then perhaps its because of this
medium we are using. I can only interpret her words through my own language
center, and I can't stop her half way through her post to ask about what she
means, or please be clearer. Anyway, if it is a misunderstanding, I'm sorry.
<snip stuff I agree with>
> If you were to go out and represent yourself as a Salinan Indian, and
> tell people that Salinans painted their faces red and danced around the
> fire using drums, it steals from me. It steals from my time as I have to
> spend it explaining to people that you are not Salinan and therefore
> your statements are false. It steals from my identity in that it makes
> it harder for me to move through the world on my path without being
> questioned by your followers. It steals from my energy in that I waste a
> lot of it explaining (as I am now) the nature of California Indian
> culture, or that drumming was considered offensive, or that California
> Indians did have an economy with money (in the form of beads) or
> whatever.
>
> That's cultural theft.
If thats what Cat also meant by cultural theft, then my response would have
been very different to her, but she did not make herself clear, and I am
ignorant of the terminology of the Californian indians and Maori.
Setting yourself up as something you are not, and the expense of those
people who are is, IMHO, very wrong, grossly disrespectful, and I'd never do
it. I join with her, you and a heck of alot of other people to condemn it,
and I see it, I'll both refuse to participate and attempt to stop it.
<snip stuff I agree with>
> > But what it seems (to me at least) Cat was saying is that we've gone and
> > knocked of her culture for our own nefeous uses, and therefore have
somehow
> > taken away something special from her culture, and continue to do so.
> >
> > As you may notice, I disagree with that arguement because I don't agree
that
> > anyone can lay property rights (ie, its mine, you can't have it, and I
> > reserve the right to dictate how its used) to an *idea* or *concept*.
...
>
> Tell that to Microsoft, demonstrate that by mass-producing counterfit
> copies of Windows XP, and see how long before Microsoft shows it's
> disagreement with a visit from the Fed...
:-)
Yes, complete counterfeiting is wrong, as we have established. But you know
and I know that Graphic User Interfaces and operating systems, and GUI-based
operatign systems were around a long time before Microsoft's Windows. Heck,
I even had it on my old Commodore 64 (now that wasa *cool* box). And while
I have no doubt Microsoft would try a whole heap of bully tactics to prevent
me making and distributing my own GUI based OS, I'm not in breach of
copyright: the idea of GUIs and OSs were in the public domain long before
Microsoft got their thumb in the pie. Even with patents (which I have some
dealing with in Meatlife) all it gives the holder is the right to use their
idea in a particular way. If I think "hey thats nifty" and build a better
box for their idea, there's nothing they can do about it, and I get to
patent my box as well. Ideas cannot be *owned* in the same way physical
items can be *owned*.
>
> > If I may invoke Meme theory at this point, ...
>
> Oh, puhleeeeease... I like Brinn's writings a lot, but there's a "meme"
> I'd like to squash.
>
>
> > ... They are just *memes*, none are more sacred out
> > there in Memespace, none have inherently better value - the only thing
that
> > makes one meme better than another in meme theory is that that
particular
> > meme is held by more people, and stays as the preferrable mean when it
is
> > compared to others in it sown category. ...
>
> So when your "meme" steps on my ability to move in the world (say, by
> instilling the concept that perhaps living in a security state is
> preferable to living free, or instilling the concept that as a Native
> American I *must* act as a preserver of my culture, a champion of the
> environment and the like), it's okay because no meme is preferable
> except that it's held by a large number of people?
No, thats not how memes work, and I haven't made myself clear. "Preferrable"
in term sof memespace, not "prefferable to the individual that has it".
We'll take a meme: "indegenous people are drunken lazy dole bludgers." Is it
a "good" meme, I'd say no. But since it seems rather far spread and damn
hard to get rid of, then in terms of memespace amd memespace *only* it is
quite succesful compared to "indegenous people are individuals everyone
else, and *some* are drunken lazy dole bludgers, like the rest of us"
althought hat one, thankfully, is making in roads) and far more succesful
than "indigeous people are better people than everyone else"
Now of course while the majority of the people hold "indigenous people are
drunken lazy dole bludgers" indigenous people are going to have a seriously
hard time. Its not right, but thats whats going to happen, ditto with any
other morally bad meme.
You and I, as individuals can take a look at our set of ideas and see which
ones we like and which we don't, and we can replace the ones we don't like
with ones we consider are better for us. I see you have come across the meme
that you should be a champion of your culture, and that you have rejected
it. That doesn't mean that meme goes away, nor does it mean that somebody
down the road doesn't find it useful and becomes a champion for their
society. Its just an *idea*. I don't know where it came from, I don't know
what context it was originally in, what culture it may have escaped from.
But you had the choice of using it or not, and you chose not to.
I can go look at some of the ideas that are "out there" regarding "native
culture". And I can pick and choose what I want. Others can pick & choose
what they want (or not want). Most people do it unconciously but in the end
its a selection. The memes "God is the sun" and "There is no god" are just
ideas, until someone puts them in practice.
> That's just a gobblygook justification for mob rule!
I am not very good at explaning meme-theory, my apologies.
But the world is ruled by mobs anyway. We are lucky that our particular mobs
wrote our rules down and have agreed, by and large, to stick to those rules.
Although a revolution can always occur.
> Pray that the "meme" that murdering Wiccans en-mass in the name of
> salvation and of Jesus Christ doesn't catch on!
Um, it has already - or at least a very similar one. Thankfully its seems
only to be in small niches of the population - and you first need the Jesus
and the Salvation and the Evil Wiccan memes before that one is likely to
take hold.
And also thankfully, the "thou shalf not murder" is a stronger meme again -
so strong it got written down.
<snip more about memes, figuring its getting OT and not furthering the
discussion>
> And while looking at the idea of memes as self-propagating life forms in
> idea space may be interesting from a philosophical point of view, at the
> point where you gloss over your own personal resonsibility is the point
> where I say "Memespace" is a complete load of crap.
You know, I agree with you there. But thats the point - having an *idea*
does not harm or benefit anyone. Its just an *idea*, it has no inherent
value until an individual *acts* on it. Two individuals can have the very
same idea and act quite differntly. Its not the *idea*, its the person. The
individuals I gather you have a problem with are the ones who have taken
certain memes from your collection, and then claim that they are the Genuine
Article. This would, and does, annoy me too. But if had some memes from your
collection and wasn't so damn arrogant to think I was Doing Genuine
Californian Indian rituals, the only difference between me and the person
who pisses you off is not, as far as I understand, our use of your ideas,
but is how we then go and present those ideas to third parties? One person
would pass them off as "genuine Californian Indian Spiritual Rituals" and I
might say "oh, hey, this idea of xxxx is really good, I"ve found it works
really well, you should try it". I am not claiming any expertise or your
falsely claiming your identity, but the other is. Is this the heart of the
problem? Cat?
Yowie
Yowie
news:ips8lus3rhrf95og4...@4ax.com...
> "Tamara Eddy" <tam...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >Western culture', but has been practised by every conquering people since
> >the beginning of time. The conquering culture adopts, assimilates,
rapes,
> >pillages, destroys, etc because they 'can'.
>
> And then dredges it up again in "how so cute". like Celtic Wiccan
> Trad, or Druids in Washed Whites and Nice People or The Ancient
> Workings of the Egyptians, and etc. (I know I missed out Atlantis)
>
> Well I am Wicca of the Woods and Trees and Wild Spaces if I can find
> them. Of the Lake and Rain and Call of the Wild things (If they still
> exist). I take from wherever I can find for my own usage, but more
> often the unknowing finds me, and I have to learn its lesson. (and
> that is a real shakey down to the core, but learn I will no other)
>
> So you can dee-dah your Trad like it was told to your Granny and
> biddies before her. I face the wind and the edge of the world and
> drink from the wave and not the water.
>
> I've rattled the bones and gone down the blood and found they are
> hollow. Give me the sky, the reach and desire, and the song of Summers
> last swallow. When you stand between worlds in the fog of unknowning
> yet certain this way is true, hearing the red eared hounds snap and
> wail and feared yet want to follow.
>
> and there I stop now.
> Read it if you will.
> Or pass it by.
> You who have been there will nod
> Those who aint won't even try.
What a beautiful description of your faith, Leotine
Yowie
Yowie
news:fu39lugs2h957o4em...@4ax.com...
Yes.
>From what I read of Cat's post , I thought she meant thieving as the taking
of ideas without permission. If its just the taking of ideas, I don't think
its theft. If its the adoption of said ideas and then having the temerity to
change them and still call it "Native", then I could see how that could be
considered theft, and wholeheartedly agree that its wrong.
Cat, could you confirm that that is what you meant by "theft"?
Yowie
William Woody
> > Okay, as the concept of "cultural theft" is an indigenous one, let me
> > define it from the perspective of the California Indian (as I understand
> > it).
>
> I'm sorry you are banging your head on the table William, but in all
> seriousness, how on earth was I supposed to know this when I am not a
> Californian Indian, ...
Precisely. Had you known this, my post would have been redundant.
> > That's cultural theft.
>
> If thats what Cat also meant by cultural theft, then my response would have
> been very different to her, but she did not make herself clear, and I am
> ignorant of the terminology of the Californian indians and Maori.
Sure. She was talking more about intellectual property theft, not theft
of experience.
Hense, my disagreement with her.
[rest snipped for time savings]
--
William Edward Woody - wo...@alumni.caltech.edu
In Phase Consulting - http://www.inphase.org
The PandaWave - http://www.pandawave.com
Macintosh and Microsoft Windows Custom Development
William Woody
> William Woody wrote:
> > Now in the last few years a number of indigenous groups have taken the
> > idea of "cultural theft" meaning "intellectual property theft." And
> > while there is some validity to this idea, the basic concept of
> > intellectual property (or rather, the idea of owning an idea) was
> > foreign to California Indians. You can't steal an idea.
>
> If you look at the submission they're trying to put through to the UN, I
> think that term of 'intellectual property theft' in terms of the property
> being tribal/people owned - is an approach taken because it's understandable
> in the Western context. ...
Sure, I get that. But I don't necessarly agree with the implications of
using intellectual property rights to legally protect cultural
expression. I can imagine the mess if intellectual property rights were
applied to Asian cultures...
> ... In our culture everybody is a guardian of the whole -
> everyone owns if you can say that the Land for example (although that idea
> of ownerships doesn't fit) - rather you have a responsibility for a certain
> area - for various things. It is wrong to steal that responsibility from
> another. Outsiders just arent qualified - particually when it comes to
> knowledge - they aren't qualified to teach it - the responsibility is
> anothers.
>
> And that's the main point people are missing, and it is a common arrogance in
> Western culture to think because they can re-interpret something to 'make
> sense' of it, that they 'understand'. They don't.
In this we differ.
First, ownership patterns practiced amongst California Indian cultures
were very close to western patterns: individual land ownership, property
owernship and the like were common amongst most tribes in California.
California Tribes also relied on money, in the form of money beads made
from three different grades of shells.
Second, it's not an issue of if someone is qualified to "teach"
something--there is nothing to teach, because that presumes the teacher
wants to change the path of the student. There are things to share,
there are conversations and opinions, but nothing to teach.
And third, as there is nothing to teach, there is no issue, at least
from my perspective, from "reinterpretation": it doesn't matter if
someone wishes to reinterpret the symbols to make sense of it to himself.
The only problem, and I mean the <<only>> problem, from my perspective,
then, is not reinterpretation or misinterpretation or intellectual
property rights of the symbols.
The <<only>> problem is misrepresentation. That is, it's with
individuals who have no Indian blood pretending to speak for Indian
cultures by virtue of having hung around a couple of pow-wows or going
to an arts and crafts show.
Some white wants to make California Indian style pine-needle baskets
with green grass interweaved patterns in a California Indian style, I
don't have a problem. My only problem is if he then passes it off as a
genuine Indian product.
> > But you can steal parts of someone else's life.
> >
> > And if you want to get nitpicky, that's where I depart from Catherine
> > Karena: her idea of theft seems to stem from the concept of intellectual
> > property theft. My ideas come from California Indian traditional
> > concepts of theft of experience, related above.
>
> Actually you don't know where I'm coming from Woody. ...
Hense, the use of my word "seems." It <<seems>> you are coming from a
point of view of intellectual property rights of the Maori--a
perspective you <<seemed>> to reinforce with your post.
And it is with this <<apparent>> position I disagree with.
> ... I haven't identified
> fully what I think of as cultural theft. That's not what I'm here for.
You sure as hell could have fooled me, with your initial post in this
newsgroup.
> > See, I depart from this concept of "theft by wiping out a culture"--because
> > it does not permit a person from a traditional background
>
> Woody, when you wipe out a people there is no one left to move on. ...
Read more carefully. I did *NOT* say "wipe out a <<people>>", I said
"wipe out a <<culture>>"--that is, I was disagreeing with the notion
that cultural assimilation or cultural nullification is cultural theft
in that it does not permit a native the freedom to choose his own path.
Now let me be clear. The act of forcing Native Americans to speak only
English in the schools is theft of culture: it limits the choices
someone can make. However, there are those who advocate cultural
preservation who are trying to swing the pendulum the other way--meaning
that natives are presumed to want to stay on the reservation rather than
make thier own way in the world.
The assumption that natives should preserve their culture (or rather,
should not want to choose their own path) is wrapped up in the
definitions of "cultural theft" I was reading here.
> > That is, by presuming that natives would want to preserve their culture is
> > a
> > form of experiential theft--it makes it harder for me to (say) shop at
> > Ralphs
> > instead of picking acorns, buy a Miata instead of walking on moccasins
> > everywhere, own a house instead of li ving in a mud hut, or use a clothes
> > washer
> > instead of beating my skins on a rock by a river--as I'm now faced with
> > having
> > to justify my choices to people
> > who think I should pick the primitive instead of picking comfort.
>
> It depends on what your culture is. Our culture doesn't revolve around
> 'things' or around the 'outward appearance', around 'ariticles' etc. Our
> culture revolves around that which 'stands under' the physical world.
You eat, don't you? You live with a roof over your head, don't you? You
have clothes on your back, shoes on your feet, some mode of
transportation, don't you?
Native American culture was and is, in a sense, a very pragmatic culture
which revolves around survival. And in that sense I'm a very pragmatic
person--if something brings me comfort or makes me happy from an
asthetic sense, then limiting my ability to obtain these things by
assuming that as someone with native blood these things are not
compatable with my spirituality is highly offensive to me.
> ... To the whites the 'accusation' is made we are 'assimilated'. Not
> according to our frame of reference we are not. Hence you will find in
> Aotearoa that there is a movement to put Pcs and Internet into all the
> Marae . Maori are going to be Maori whatever environment we find
> ourselves in.
Then, with all due respect, why complain when Whites borrow Maori
cultural or symbolic items--aside from the misrepresentation of Maori
culture that has happened so far by some of those who have borrowed?
My only problem is the misrepresentation that has occured. Set that
aside, and what do we have left? Borrowing some ideas, some symbols,
some names, and some survival tactics which the Maori undoubtedly
created. Perhaps, if the Maori name is stripped from them, they may help
someone else who is not Maori evolve or survive in the world--what's
wrong with that? What the hell; I like my Miata--and I see absolutely
nothing wrong with someone trying to interpret a Coyote story in a way
that may give them comfort.
Tamara Eddy
Catherine Karena <kat...@ol.com.au> wrote in message
news:3D5497DA...@ol.com.au...
never thought to *make* me follow one path or another. They only wished me
to find something that I would be happy doing.
(snip definition of cultural theft)
> If you look at the submission they're trying to put through to the UN, I
think
> that term of 'intellectual property theft' in terms of the property being
> tribal/people owned - is an approach taken because it's understandable in
the
> Western context. In our culture everybody is a guardian of the whole -
everyone
> owns if you can say that the Land for example (although that idea of
ownerships
> doesn't fit) - rather you have a responsibility for a certain area - for
various
> things. It is wrong to steal that responsibility from another. Outsiders
just
> arent qualified - particually when it comes to knowledge - they aren't
qualified
> to teach it - the responsibility is anothers.
>
> And that's the main point people are missing, and it is a common arrogance
in
> Western culture to think because they can re-interpret something to 'make
sense'
> of it, that they 'understand'. They don't.
I agree, to a point. I don't think that it's arrogance to 'try to make
sense' of something for your own personal understanding. The arrogance
would come in when someone thinks that because they 'get the gist' of
something, they are now qualified experts who can teach it to someone else.
An example - i know nothing of Maori culture except what you have expressed
here. I do not pretend to 'know' or 'understand' your culture, although I
have gotten 'a feel' for the things that you have been expressing. It would
be arrogance (not to mention ignorant) on my part to go out today and get
into a discussion of Maori culture with someone and say, "Oh, yeah, I know
about them. Here let me tell you what their culture is about."
>
> > But you can steal parts of someone else's life.
> >
> > And if you want to get nitpicky, that's where I depart from Catherine
> > Karena: her idea of theft seems to stem from the concept of intellectual
> > property theft. My ideas come from California Indian traditional
> > concepts of theft of experience, related above.
>
> Actually you don't know where I'm coming from Woody. What you shared with
above is
> very similiar to how Maori educate their children. If you exchanged the
> "Californian Indian" for "Maori" there's little difference in thinking.
But when I
> am talking to Whites - I try to relate in terms that they understand.
Not necessarily a wise course of action. The people of this NG are very
ecclectic. Try using your own words for your cultures ideas. If someone
doesn't understand what you mean, (s)he'll ask, discuss, debate, attack,
flame... Eventually a closer understanding will come to be.
I don't know the history here. Could you either post or email me about
this? I sounds absolutely barbaric.
Tamara
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> And third, as there is nothing to teach, there is no issue, at least
> from my perspective, from "reinterpretation": it doesn't matter if
> someone wishes to reinterpret the symbols to make sense of it to himself.
And here we disagree, I'm afraid, at least in one sense.
If the symbols do, in fact, represent *external* realities, energies
or Entities (as many people believe) then such reinterpretation could
be downright dangerous. For example:
<snip>
> ...I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone trying to interpret a
> Coyote story in a way that may give them comfort.
But has anyone asked Old Man Coyote (under the premise adumbrated
above) whether *He* wants to be reinterpreted?
I am aware that Coyote is analogous in several respects to Dionysos,
a Power to whom I do refer in my own rituals/Magical Workings.
Coyote, like Dionysos, appears to be an Aspect of the
Trickster/Changer. HOWEVER, I am also aware of several stories of
Navajo origin in which Coyote seems to be even less benign than
Dionysos - Who is not particularly benign to begin with.
Unfortunately, I do not know *all* the stories of Navajo origin that
deal with Don Coyote (some of them are not, apparently, repeated to
"outsiders" no matter how well-meaning, with the set of "outsiders"
being expanded to include all individuals of all races and cultures -
including other Navajo - who are not in direct descent from
particular Lines of Singers), and I know even fewer stories with
roots in other American Indian cultures in which Coyote may appear.
Speaking from a strictly Magical/spiritual point of view, this leaves
entirely too many active unknowns for me to be comfortable in dealing
with Coyote in Magic or ritual. By "active unknowns," I mean that
these stories about Coyote are still current amongst some peoples and
that if Coyote is neither an abstract nor a projection of the
collective subconscousness of the human race but is instead an actual
entity, dealing with Him an any way to which He might take exception
might be, hmm, foolhardy to say the least. Tales I do know about
Coyote indicate that while He reserves unto Himself the right to
meddle in the affairs of everyone else, He very actively resents
those who dare to meddle in *His* affairs!
(Stories about Dionysos, on the other hand, are limited fairly
strictly to literary sources - His active worship having died out
nearly two thousand years ago - and I have taken as a working
assumption that He is therefore likely to be at least somewhat
constrained by the limits of the information we *do* have about Him.)
It seems to me, therefore and from the point of view of a person to
whom such Powers as Coyote are not part of the ancestral cultural
heritage, that "reinterpretation" even in the most harmless of modes
might not be entirely safe....
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Newstaff, Inc. at newstaff.com - a network security company
William Woody
> William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And third, as there is nothing to teach, there is no issue, at least
> > from my perspective, from "reinterpretation": it doesn't matter if
> > someone wishes to reinterpret the symbols to make sense of it to himself.
>
> And here we disagree, I'm afraid, at least in one sense.
>
> If the symbols do, in fact, represent *external* realities, energies
> or Entities (as many people believe) then such reinterpretation could
> be downright dangerous. For example:
>
> <snip>
>
> > ...I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone trying to interpret a
> > Coyote story in a way that may give them comfort.
>
> But has anyone asked Old Man Coyote (under the premise adumbrated
> above) whether *He* wants to be reinterpreted?
Well, there's the thing: if Old Man Coyote doesn't like the way you've
brought His stories into your heart, he'll undoubtedly play his ol' bag
of Tricks and beat your ass silly for it.
And that's it: reinterpret the stories all you want, to your own pearl.
It's not my path, and it's not my job to tell you you've fucked up,
stuck your head in the psychic oven and are about to light a spiritual
match.
The way Indian stories were told, it was up to each individual to
interpret the stories as it made sense to him. Sometimes members of the
tribe would misinterpret the stories and it would lead them to great
pearl. But the elders would *never* interpret the stories for the
children of the tribe--only offer new stories to help clarify the old.
That, by the way, is my problem with the professor who lectured that
Coyote stories were extensions of Freudian concepts--not because he
interpreted the stories in his way, but that he shared his
interpretation for others--and ruined the substance of the stories,
reducing them for his audience to nothing more than an empty
psychoanalytical exercise.
And, by the way, that's also my point in all of my rants here as
well--the people here who presume to be the gatekeepers of other
people's paths, or protectors of other people's paths all presume to be
"interpreting the story" on behalf of other people.
> I am aware that Coyote is analogous in several respects to Dionysos,
> a Power to whom I do refer in my own rituals/Magical Workings.
> Coyote, like Dionysos, appears to be an Aspect of the
> Trickster/Changer. HOWEVER, I am also aware of several stories of
> Navajo origin in which Coyote seems to be even less benign than
> Dionysos - Who is not particularly benign to begin with.
Oh, Coyote can be a very nasty mother-fucker, even in California Indian
tales. Unlike Dionysis, many aspects of Coyote can be quite amoral, and
not above wiping people out or driving them mad for no good reason.
In that sense, Coyote is revered because He is most like Man.
> Speaking from a strictly Magical/spiritual point of view, this leaves
> entirely too many active unknowns for me to be comfortable in dealing
> with Coyote in Magic or ritual. By "active unknowns," I mean that
> these stories about Coyote are still current amongst some peoples and
> that if Coyote is neither an abstract nor a projection of the
> collective subconscousness of the human race but is instead an actual
> entity, dealing with Him an any way to which He might take exception
> might be, hmm, foolhardy to say the least. ...
Oh, have I mentioned that I've meditated on Coyote rather extensively?
Or does it show in my posts?
And as I've said, if someone wants to throw themselves into the abyss,
who am I to say "stop?"
> ... Tales I do know about
> Coyote indicate that while He reserves unto Himself the right to
> meddle in the affairs of everyone else, He very actively resents
> those who dare to meddle in *His* affairs!
Yep. And sometimes he even resents those who don't.
At least Sekmet's desire to wipe out all of mankind before She was
stopped with beer is a predictable sort of destructive force...
> It seems to me, therefore and from the point of view of a person to
> whom such Powers as Coyote are not part of the ancestral cultural
> heritage, that "reinterpretation" even in the most harmless of modes
> might not be entirely safe....
Nor is playing with fire. People *die* playing with fire--yet we also
use fire to cook. And sometimes someone has to burn all of the hair off
their face (as I did once) in a gas explosion to learn to respect fire.
Synnoveah J Cooke
wrote:
>
>Well, this where we part company eg Ta Moko is something that gets appropriated by
>Whites and Pagans. It's like something they hone in on. Here's something that
>attain you would spend something like 6 months to a year maybe before what is to
>be tattooed on your face is even designed. As you list your achievements, consider
>your life story, go around to the rest of your family and extended tribe to
>confirm, consider or consult with what you are entitled to wear. The whole process
>of Ta Moko is sacred. The artist spends a lot of time to pull together the symbols
>and integration of these symbols - to tell the story of this one's life. And then
>you get some (usually) Yank (although the Germans are going bonkers over it) who
>finds a picture of a Ta Moko individual and unique to that person and iwi and
>plasters it on his own face, with some bastard mix of Celt or whatever.
Unfortunately, some of those same artists are not helping that by
showing up at a Tattoo show in Oakland California and using their
unique tattoo art tools to tattoo people who are not of their tribe or
culture. Now if they are going out into the world and offering it,
then it isn't being stolen. And they are over in Oakland this weekend
as a matter of fact.
>
>- Most of this behaviour seems to be a continuation of history - the practise
>westerners have of taking souvenirs from others - there is no respect involved.
>Often it is done to show off something 'unique' and 'pretty' or 'cool' to others.
>There is absolutely no concern that he's trivilising something sacred to another.
What I have to ask then in regards to American Indians, if this is
being trivialized by the whites and tourists from all over the world
seeking souvenirs, why are they being sold at the Indian trading posts
all over the South Western United States. If it is something that is
sacred, why is it being offered to the general public who don't
understand its sacred value?
>
>I NOTICE that in the main that is in fact the Western world that in the main act
>this way. The Wananga Aotearoa sends out those who have learnt there skill into
>different countries to cross skill - share the 'how' of their designs and
>techniques. For example the spiral work that is so common, we'll show how that is
>done, etc. On this board everyone it seems to identify that as 'appropriation' and
>that's not what is being said. It's really odd.
>
>What's really interesting even on this newsgroups (unless it's being said in the
>posts that aren't showing up) - is that it's completely ignored the fact that
>Maori for example and many other Native American nations we've worked with on
>various projects - do want various teachings and ways disseminated out there.
>What's interesting is those things are in the main NOT wanted at all. They want
>the 'toys', they want the pretty feathers, the pennants. They like the idea of
>finding a nother peope they can say is 'less' than them. They like the idea of
>becoming an authority on someone else without qualification.
>
>Kat
>
The majority might well be that way, and that is sad that they are
passing up a once in a life time chance to open their minds and expand
their knowledge of the world far away and beyond. But honestly, I've
not come across those who would offer anything other than the trinkets
and I don't buy those. I have had tribal elders give me dream catchers
that they have made..And I checked them out..the feathers on one are
on the sides and bottom and the other one isn't in the center bottom
but sides and sort of on one side near the bottom. Interesting. From
two different tribes no less.
William Woody
Keep in mind that opinions as to what is cultural theft or what is worth
taking offense at varies widely, even amongst members of the same group
or tribe. So one guy may go to a tattoo show and tattoo his tribal art
on some random guy with some money--but that doesn't mean other members
of his tribe won't be offended at the work or the resulting tattoo.
Look at me. Some folks in my own tribe are now incorporating drumming
into their meetings. I think it's silly, as drumming is not native to
California Indians--and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way.
But as always with everything in life, Your Milege May Vary.
> >- Most of this behaviour seems to be a continuation of history - the
> >practise
> >westerners have of taking souvenirs from others - there is no respect
> >involved.
> >Often it is done to show off something 'unique' and 'pretty' or 'cool' to
> >others.
> >There is absolutely no concern that he's trivilising something sacred to
> >another.
>
> What I have to ask then in regards to American Indians, if this is
> being trivialized by the whites and tourists from all over the world
> seeking souvenirs, why are they being sold at the Indian trading posts
> all over the South Western United States. If it is something that is
> sacred, why is it being offered to the general public who don't
> understand its sacred value?
Actually, there are a couple of interesting social things going on here.
(Bare with me; it's late, I'm tired and I hope I can get these points
out in a coherent manner.)
First, many of the "sacred" trinkets are not actually sacred at all. For
example, some items sold may be constructed or created in the
traditional manner, but they may incorporate raw components or
ingredients that are not sacred at all. If you are intending to buy
something that you want to be "sacred", it's worth having a chat with
the sales person. In particular, things made with animal parts (such as
fur trim pieces wrapping walking sticks or leather straps used to hold
items together) may use components bought from a crafts store rather
than hand-killed and blessed in the sacred fashion of that tribe. They
do this because most new-agers don't know the difference, so why go
through all the effort if the time and effort is just going to be lost?
Second, many of the crafts are not even sacred symbols to that tribe.
Take dream catchers--they were not sacred at all to all but a handful of
tribes, but they're a hot seller. Keep in mind many of these "trading
posts" are actually put together as part of a tribe's economic
self-sustanance plan, so those trading posts are the equivalent of the
various tourist trap stores along Hollywood Boulevard--they aren't
providing sacred objects to the public, but selling trinkets to make
money.
Third, in the United States, an object qualifies as "Native American
Art" if it is made by a Native American. There are no standards as to
the quality, construction, or cultural significance of the artwork that
is sold. If I were to slap some paint on a piece of wood that was
vaguely shaped like a dog's head, I'd just need to blow the dust off my
certificate of registration in the California Indian census roles, and
sell that piece of crap as "Native American Art". Just call it "shadows
of Coyote" and I'm sure some bozo may think it was an important cultural
and spiritual find rather than some random jerk as myself slapping paint
on a piece of wood.
Now I've never sold home-made "Native American Art" because it's a
racket I'd rather not get involved in. And it is a racket: the laws
which make it illegal for non-Natives to sell Native Art is not about
cultural preservation but about creating a monopoly so that Native
Americans can achieve some degree of economic self-sustanance.
It all goes back to the ol' BIA "Indian Problem"--the problem of how to
take a people who do not fit into the dominate cultural paradigm and
make them economically self-sufficient. But needless to say those shops
in the Southwest that you refer to aren't trading spiritual currency;
they're selling crap to make a buck.
(I don't mean to imply some of the stuff isn't beautiful or well-made;
I'm particularly fond of blackwork pottery, and own a couple of
hundred-dollar bowls of fairly intricate design. But I look at that
pottery not as a sacred objects of worship, but as a particularly
beautiful examples of artwork made by a Native American artist.)
Gale
<snip>
>
>
> The way Indian stories were told, it was up to each individual to
> interpret the stories as it made sense to him. Sometimes members of the
> tribe would misinterpret the stories and it would lead them to great
> pearl. But the elders would *never* interpret the stories for the
> children of the tribe--only offer new stories to help clarify the old.
Hmmm. Something I can relate to from my approach to teaching lit. I
don't want to overextend the parallel -- a sacred story may be quite a
bit more than a piece of literature (though I personally treat a few
pieces of lit rather like my own sacred stories). However, I'll note
that I offer "an interpretation" or "some directions for interpretation"
in my lectures -- and try very hard to tell my students I'm not offering
"THE interpretation." Now, of course, in a lit class I have all sorts of
standards and so forth that create a peril called an "F" that besets
those whose interpretations are outrageous; also, I certainly don't
follow that pattern of "never interpreting ..." you explain above. So
there are certainly significant differences -- but enough commonality to
the direction of approach that I'm quite delighted.
>
> That, by the way, is my problem with the professor who lectured that
> Coyote stories were extensions of Freudian concepts--not because he
> interpreted the stories in his way, but that he shared his
> interpretation for others--and ruined the substance of the stories,
> reducing them for his audience to nothing more than an empty
> psychoanalytical exercise.
And I experienced enough of folks imagining they were offering "the"
answers to interpretive pieces that I walked away from academics not
that long after completing my MA; it was close to 15 years before I got
back into the classroom and a a few more before I took a position behind
the lecturn. Another parallel (that I don't want to overplay too badly):
a good piece of literature is far richer than any single interpretation
or direction of interpretation. To reduce a lit piece to a jigsaw
puzzle, a psychoanalytical exercise, or what-have-you is to
significantly reduce the student's ability to explore, appreciate, and
plain-old enjoy it.
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated: http://arwm.net
Catherine Karena
> >From what I read of Cat's post , I thought she meant thieving as the taking
> of ideas without permission. If its just the taking of ideas, I don't think
> its theft. If its the adoption of said ideas and then having the temerity to
> change them and still call it "Native", then I could see how that could be
> considered theft, and wholeheartedly agree that its wrong.
>
> Cat, could you confirm that that is what you meant by "theft"?
>
> Yowie
This is some definations in _brief_ (In the following post I'll put up a point
list - that notes the main behaviours)
Cultural theft is when those who are not of a tradition or culture take those
traditions for profit, prestige and/or ego. It encompasses non-sanctioned
ceremonies being claimed as authentic, titles and tribes
formed with no basis in fact, dishonored tribal agreements and ongoing
political/financial abuses, art being claimed as native ; for sale in disregard
to federal/state laws, or agreement.
Cultural misappropriation comes about from misunderstanding fueled by inaccurate
movies/books/internet/media sources, and the entitlement/ownership mindset of
many who would attempt to emulate or claim understanding of sacred
ways/spiritual or cultural teachings but not wish to follow the experiential
guidelines of proper learning and tribal participation.
There's a third and more common behavior of simple cultural misunderstanding;
ignorance, from those not attempting to emulate or appropriate, but are still
misinformed, through false educations, hearsay,
and distorted media. That's very common - and though it feeds and is fuels the
other two. At least it's easier to reply to with projects to educate eg we're
organising a live virtual university where outsiders the world over can ask
their questions direct from the source.
Cultural theft and misappropriation are basically a form of abuse. One that does
not either choose to understand when given the correct information and
traditional behavior, and/or wish to follow through
with the cultural requirements to proceed farther than their books or videos
etc., have the probable potential of becoming a cultural thief or abuser.
It astounds people in this mindset who are confronted, for they are caught in
the perception that, if their ways are caring, (or as they continually claim
'showing *honour* or *respect*) then it should be _O.K_ to misunderstand or
misrepresent. These are appropriation and *entitlement* mentalities, common in
the western world. It amounts to a religious imperception, as if those
iwi/tribes who practice their ways are seeking converts. (Or as I've noticed on
this newsgroup the idea that the Gods themselves are out to get converts ::rolls
eyes::)
Both attitudes don't lend to any understanding of what an actual culture is
about or teaching. Among the Maori as it with many indigenous the world over
(and NO Woody just making that observations is not setting myself as a
'representative' ::please get a clue an/or _ seriously_ get a hug or maybe a
really really really good bonk or something -boy are you full of yourself :) ::
) There are Maori as there are many natives who simply live or are 'assimilated'
and have no desire to practice tradition or learn their ways - they do not
abuse, although some of this is due to traditions being taken away by
social/economic survival influences, which is sad to see. Or put off learning
their heritage due to 'bad press'.
Misrepresentation in the medias, and by those who falsely claim understanding
seriously affects the way Maori and indigenous are seen by the dominant society,
and can affect the status quo's attitudes and policies towards the tribes in
detrimental ways. Most anybody can tell you of stereotypical comments made to
them out of ignorance, or harmful arbitrary actions against you by the larger
governments, media or Pakeha self appointed representatives. Or what I've
witnessed most on this newsgroup - just remarks that show that the only world
you know of is your own.
Cultural theft and misappropriation btw also can happen between "native'
peoples. It frankly doesn't matter who does it. I notice some of the plastic
shaman/new age gurus who claim some 'native' heritage often exploit the
mentality that "all natives are all the same" and give 'permission' to take
whatever from tribe not their own eg Hyemeyohsts Storm's attitude to the Lakota.
An article that commented on this was posted on our Internation Indigenous forum
yesterday
http://www.lakotajournal.com/Notes.htm
Last year I put a flyer together when Barry Brailsford New Zealand grown New Age
guru was going to show up at the Mind Body and Spirit festival. The last part
was points or obervations of common behaviours of those who committ cultural
theft or misappropriation
WHAT ARE THE COMMON TRAITS OF THOSE WHO EXPLOIT NATIVE SPIRITUALITY?
One, who sets himself up as an expert on indigenous spirituality, misrepresents
and reinvents that spirituality claiming that his interpretation is authentic.
One who makes a claim of a Native identity that incorporates no learning, living
of or contribution to that culture. Further more has no marginal or recognised
tribal or family knowledge, affliation or genetic heritage.
Or who makes false claims to a heritage not his own.
One who makes assumptions that there is a Pan_Native I.E that there is one
Native American religion, one Mâori religion, one Aboriginal' etc etc. Making
the assumptions that there is one culture or one type of spirituality. When in
reality indigenous people have unique and diverse identities, cultures and
spiritualities tied to their land, heritage, family and tribe.
One who indiscriminatly makes use of native symbolism and tribal rituals without
permission and furthermore without really understanding them. (Usually apparent
with those who engage in a smorgensboard approach to spirituality taking bits
and pieces form different tribes and mixing them with other spiritual practises
or religion, for example: Buddhism, Wicca, Yoga, Paranormal etc. Which is than
passed off as "Native religion or ways".)
One who promotes disinformation of what constitutes the spirituality of a
particular tribe or people on a wide enough scale sufficient to make people not
recognise what is or is not true. Even when stated otherwise from the correct
and appropriate authorities of those people.
One, who exploits a demand for 'native spirituality', extensively markets their
limited knowledge, offer paid workshops for gains obtained in profit and
prestige.
One, who takes on un-due honours of a tribe or people not there own.
One, who appropriates indigenous ceremonies for gain, for example: pipe
ceremonies, sweatlodges, vision quests, Indian chanting, medicine circles, tohi
and pure rites.
Cheers
Kat
William Woody
> William Woody wrote:
> <snip>
> > The way Indian stories were told, it was up to each individual to
> > interpret the stories as it made sense to him. Sometimes members of the
> > tribe would misinterpret the stories and it would lead them to great
> > pearl. But the elders would *never* interpret the stories for the
> > children of the tribe--only offer new stories to help clarify the old.
>
> Hmmm. Something I can relate to from my approach to teaching lit. I
> don't want to overextend the parallel -- a sacred story may be quite a
> bit more than a piece of literature (though I personally treat a few
I don't think it overextends the parallel at all. I'd say that most
literature serves exactly the same roles as most native american
stories--they entertain, demonstrate through examples the normative
morality and values of a culture (or through counterexample what they
are not), explore unknown avenues and provide insight into the nature of
the universe.
For example, even television can give a snapshot into this: the bad guys
usually get caught by the scrappy individual while the bumbling
bureaucracy stumbles all over itself. The bad guys who are so bad they
cause the death of others often die a violent death in a shootout
revolving around their crime. Children and animals are often protected,
and with very few exceptions, escape unscathed. The people who get along
with a variety of cultural and ethnic groups are often happier than
those who distrust their neighbors, though that distrust can be overcome
by an insight or an unexpected display of kindness. And those who try
succeed, though the trials can often be quite difficult.
These are all dominate themes in the culture of the United States,
though they are by no means universal across all cultures.
But unlike television stories and the stories we see in our movies,
there are few enough Indian stories left that you almost have to do a
literary analysis in order to look for common cultural themes--you can't
emmerce yourself in the stories like you can American Television. I've
got a couple of books that do exactly that--but the approach I prefer is
a survey approach: counting the number of stories that show Coyote
eathing shit and excreating food, for example, and allowing the reader
of the survey to draw his own conclusions as to what these statistics
mean.
The worse approach I've seen is reinterpreting the stories in the
context of Freudian or Jungian analysis. While there is some insight to
be shown in that approach, the results is just as big a load of crap as
the 19th century missionaries who surveyed Native American culture and
concluded that they were either the "wandering Jews of the Americas" (!)
or they were actually good Christians who received the vision of Jesus
Christ in the form of Coyote. (???)
> ... However, I'll note
> that I offer "an interpretation" or "some directions for interpretation"
> in my lectures -- and try very hard to tell my students I'm not offering
> "THE interpretation." Now, of course, in a lit class I have all sorts of
> standards and so forth that create a peril called an "F" that besets
> those whose interpretations are outrageous; also, I certainly don't
> follow that pattern of "never interpreting ..." you explain above. So
> there are certainly significant differences -- but enough commonality to
> the direction of approach that I'm quite delighted.
Well, sure; in our culture it's difficult not to interpret stories and
share those interpretations--we are so immersed in the tradition of
analysing our stories that it's hard not to.
> ... Another parallel (that I don't want to overplay too badly):
> a good piece of literature is far richer than any single interpretation
> or direction of interpretation. To reduce a lit piece to a jigsaw
> puzzle, a psychoanalytical exercise, or what-have-you is to
> significantly reduce the student's ability to explore, appreciate, and
> plain-old enjoy it.
I don't think that overplays the parallel at all. Good storytelling is
something that crosses all cultures, societies and races--I'm almost
predisposed to say that the invention of storytelling and the
domestication of dogs are the two events which triggered Man's evolution
from apes.
And the hallmark of a good story--be it a short Haiku or Zen Koan or
Native American story, ritual play, or a good movie or book--is to hint
at something deeper while not fully painting it for you.
For example, the Robin Williams vehicle "What Dreams May Come," aside
from being a sappy special-effects extravaganza about death, does not
actually answer the question "Is there a God?" Now a frame-by-frame
analysis of the movie could probably answer the question of the nature
of God in the story by revealing the biases of the script and comparing
it to existing religions to answer the question. But I think it ruins
the story by enthrowning a specific deity when a casual watching of the
movie allows the viewer to put either an empty throne, a single Deity, a
Lord and Lady, or a whole Pantheon of Gods behind the scenes--or simply
leave the question a Mystery.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> (I don't mean to imply some of the stuff isn't beautiful or well-made;
> I'm particularly fond of blackwork pottery, and own a couple of
> hundred-dollar bowls of fairly intricate design. But I look at that
> pottery not as a sacred objects of worship, but as a particularly
> beautiful examples of artwork made by a Native American artist.)
The Santa Clara pottery to which Bill refers was originally created
by a single artist who signed her name as "Maria" (the Dowager is
fortunate enough to own a - very small! - "Maria pot"). That which
is presently on sale has been made by her daughters and
granddaughters; the process is a closely guarded family secret.
In any case, pottery from the various Pueblos is unlikely to be
"sacred" in nature: its makers learned early on that tourists were
suckers for every-day household utensils. The sacred stuff never
leaves the kivas.
Some clues for potential collectors of American Indian art,
particularly that of the Southwest:
1) Anything made with dyed feathers is probably crap.
2) Anything made in the style of one Nation that *obviously*
pertains to another part of the continent altogether, while not
necessarily crap, was more than likely made for the tourist trade. I
have seen some beautifully executed Navajo, Hopi and Zuni rings
featuring Indian heads in full-feather war bonnets, for instance....
3) Anything containing real eagle feathers, bear claws and the like
had damn' well better NOT be crap: trade in these and other animal
parts is tightly regulated, and dealers must have special licenses to
handle them.
4) Navajo blankets with bright colors are probably made for the
tourist trade. (They were originally made for the Indian trade, but
that was then: this is now.) Colors in a "real" Navajo blanket are
apt to be somewhat "muddy" to the modern eye. This appears to be
true also of basketry. Some "trading posts" will have both kinds on
display: if so, another big clue is the difference in price.
5) Kokopelli is NOT a Kachina! Anything at all with that figure on
it (that isn't a petroglyph, which had better not be on sale!) is
crap. Kachina dolls on general sale have subtle but important
differences from the true representations of the Holy People, and are
meant for the tourist trade (and some of 'em are high art!).
6) Research is important, since differences do exist among the
styles of the various Nations even in similar media. Beadwork done
by the Indians of the Great Plains, for instance, is apt to be mostly
straight lines and zigzags, while beadwork of the Eastern Woodland
nations is more apt to employ curves.
7) Don't worry about buying a "medicine bundle." It was made
specifically to sell to the suckers. Even the few sacred examples on
display in museums are slowly being returned to the descendants of
their original owners (who sometimes put them on display in their own
museums, in the hope of educating their own children about the ways
of their ancestors).
8) As a general rule, if it's truly a Sacred Object you can't afford
it - and certainly couldn't afford the fines if it were found in your
collection....
William Woody
> 8) As a general rule, if it's truly a Sacred Object you can't afford
> it - and certainly couldn't afford the fines if it were found in your
> collection....
Thanks for the list; you're much clearer on this than I seem to be.
I will note that in some states, such as California, the costliest part
about owning a genuine historic sacred Indian object is not the fines,
but the jail time.
Lucida
wrote:
snip
>
>One who makes assumptions that there is a Pan_Native I.E that there is one
>Native American religion, one Mâori religion, one Aboriginal' etc etc. Making
>the assumptions that there is one culture or one type of spirituality. When in
>reality indigenous people have unique and diverse identities, cultures and
>spiritualities tied to their land, heritage, family and tribe.
snip
There is, similarly, no -Pan-Pagan community. Yet you feel justified
in assuming there not only *is* one, but that we are inherently bad
unless we can *prove* it to you otherwise... Is that fair? Or even
realistic?
Why do these standards *not* apply to you? Please explain to the
group. if you can.... Because I honestly don't think you can, but I am
willing to give you a chance to try... Then, maybe we can *discuss*
instead of *bash.*
Lucida
Gale
<snip>
> Well, sure; in our culture it's difficult not to interpret stories and
> share those interpretations--we are so immersed in the tradition of
> analysing our stories that it's hard not to.
A slightly sad story from my last spring term. In one of my Comp II
classes, as I worked through my standard little introduction to literary
analysis, one of my students said, "I'm not good at deep analysis. I
mean, I even thought _Moby Dick_ was about a whale."
He was joking -- but also apparently reflecting his experience in some
high school advanced-placement English class, a class that evidently
soured him on literature sufficiently that he was sitting through the
boring "how to write" lectures of the standard comp class rather than
enjoying a more substantial Accelerated Comp class.
What could I say? It is about a whale. The classical tragedy, the
pre-existential picture of Ishmael, the fraternal affection theme, and
all the rest of that stuff doesn't mean anything (at least not to me)
until I've read the adventure story and, in surrogate, gone to sea
chasing the whale. And yes, that's the way I teach it to my sophomores,
complete with the story of Owen Chase of the "Essex," the whaling ship
that really was sent to the bottom by an angry whale.
It really is about a whale. ;-)
William Woody
> A slightly sad story from my last spring term. In one of my Comp II
> classes, as I worked through my standard little introduction to literary
> analysis, one of my students said, "I'm not good at deep analysis. I
> mean, I even thought _Moby Dick_ was about a whale."
LOL!
Brock Ulfsen
Baird Stafford wrote:
> 8) As a general rule, if it's truly a Sacred Object you can't afford it
> - and certainly couldn't afford the fines if it were found in your
> collection....
W3ell said and true enough to repeat.
....Brock.
--
A wolf in your inbox.
An identity,
as illusory as ASCII.
Angela Wyatt
<excuse the piggyback>
>Gale <ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote:
>> A slightly sad story from my last spring term. In one of my Comp II
>> classes, as I worked through my standard little introduction to literary
>> analysis, one of my students said, "I'm not good at deep analysis. I
>> mean, I even thought _Moby Dick_ was about a whale."
>[snip]
>
>LOL!
This reminds me of a comment attributed to Richard Adams
(of _Watership Down_ fame) after someone made some seriously
over-analyzed comments about how the book addressed
practically every social evil and political event going on at the
time.
He replied with something along the lines of : I did? And here
I thought I had just written a book to entertain my children.
(Don't remember the exact quote, but you get the idea.)
Angela
Alan Young
<kat...@ol.com.au> wrote:
> [Yowie wrote:]
> > If its just the taking of ideas, I don't think
> > its theft. If its the adoption of said ideas and then having the temerity to
> > change them and still call it "Native", then I could see how that could be
> > considered theft, and wholeheartedly agree that its wrong.
> >
> > Cat, could you confirm that that is what you meant by "theft"?
> Cultural theft is when those who are not of a tradition or culture take those
> traditions for profit, prestige and/or ego. It encompasses non-sanctioned
> ceremonies being claimed as authentic, titles and tribes
> formed with no basis in fact, dishonored tribal agreements and ongoing
> political/financial abuses, art being claimed as native ; for sale in
> disregard to federal/state laws, or agreement.
Good! Clarifying this makes a world of difference in how we discuss it.
That's a clear enough definition... and I can now say I've never met a
Pagan or Wiccan who was guilty of such theft.
But then...
> Cultural misappropriation comes about from misunderstanding fueled by
> inaccurate
> movies/books/internet/media sources, and the entitlement/ownership mindset of
> many who would attempt to emulate or claim understanding of sacred
> ways/spiritual or cultural teachings but not wish to follow the experiential
> guidelines of proper learning and tribal participation.
This is a more slippery area, because it addresses intellectual
understand--something we all seek, and which many of us base *in part*
on our intuitive relationship to information we receive from many
different sources. Furthermore, while I can understand you feeling
*annoyed* that people misunderstand your culture, I see few or no
people *deliberately* spereading such misunderstanding.
(Contrast this with Wicca, which is widely misrepresented in the
mainstream media, and suffers from a bevey of well-funded right-wing
"Christian" organizations intentionally spreading lies about us. You
see, we are more on your side of this issue than we are "enemies.").
Instead of getting mad at people who are *trying* to understand your
culture and getting it wrong, wouldn't it be better to provide accurate
information in a blame-free context?
In the marketplace of ideas, accurate information will eventually win
out over misinformation, if you make it available-- and have patience.
FWIW, I personally have never encountered *any* representation of Maori
culture here in the U.S.
>
> There's a third and more common behavior of simple cultural misunderstanding;
> ignorance, from those not attempting to emulate or appropriate, but are still
> misinformed, through false educations, hearsay,
> and distorted media. That's very common - and though it feeds and is fuels the
> other two. At least it's easier to reply to with projects to educate eg we're
> organising a live virtual university where outsiders the world over can ask
> their questions direct from the source.
That sounds more constructive. And I hope who don't include such people
on your "enemies" list.
> Misrepresentation in the medias, and by those who falsely claim understanding
> seriously affects the way Maori and indigenous are seen by the dominant
> society,
> and can affect the status quo's attitudes and policies towards the tribes in
> detrimental ways. Most anybody can tell you of stereotypical comments made to
> them out of ignorance, or harmful arbitrary actions against you by the larger
> governments, media or Pakeha self appointed representatives.
Yes, well, that's just the way the world is. I'd be hard-pressed to
think of *any* minority which is not misunderstood and stereotyped by
people who don't know us intimately. Hardly a reason to make "enemies"
of everyone who takes an interest in the subject, IMO.
> Or what I've
> witnessed most on this newsgroup - just remarks that show that the only world
> you know of is your own.
Uh-oh. There you go again...I don't see that as typical of this NG *at
all*. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more eclectic and open-minded
audience. If you are thinking of a *specific* poster, you should be
specific, and not generalize your disagreement to everyone (or
"most.").
OTOH, if that's really all you can see in the wide range of responses
you've gotten here, you might as well give up-- your mind is too closed
to carry on a conversation, IMO.
> WHAT ARE THE COMMON TRAITS OF THOSE WHO EXPLOIT NATIVE SPIRITUALITY?
[snip]
> One who indiscriminatly makes use of native symbolism and tribal rituals
> without
> permission and furthermore without really understanding them. (Usually
> apparent
> with those who engage in a smorgensboard approach to spirituality taking bits
> and pieces form different tribes and mixing them with other spiritual
> practises
> or religion, for example: Buddhism, Wicca, Yoga, Paranormal etc. Which is than
> passed off as "Native religion or ways".)
This item is just plain wrong. You've already distinguished between
"exploitation" and simple misunderstanding. You should stick with that
distinction. IMO, taking bits and pieces from other cultures and
adopting them because they feel right for ones own practive is not
exploitation at all. As someone pointed out earlier, Native Americans
don't have a patent on sitting around a fire and drumming. Just about
everything sacred in one culture is part of the universal human
experience, and is honored under various names in many other cultures.
I don't have to learn the entire language and practice of a single
culture to appreciate that, and there's no reason I should.
--
Hummingbear
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/
I dreamed of a life that was pure and true
I dreamed of a job only I could do...
---Monk's Dream
Yowie
>From most of your definitions I am not guilty of cultural theft, and condemn
the practice.
What I *may* be guilty of in your eyes, but not in mine, is using ideas that
I don't fully understand. But that not/shallow understanding is not
specifically in terms of any native culture but of *everything*, and
certainly doesn't mean I am not willing to learn more (although I may not be
*capable* of learning more). I don't, for example, have a deep understanding
of mathematics either, but it doesn't stop me using what I do know. Then
again,I don't pass myself off as a maths professor either.
Cheers,
Yowie
"Catherine Karena" <kat...@ol.com.au> wrote in message
news:3D566805...@ol.com.au...
Yowie
> Keep in mind that opinions as to what is cultural theft or what is worth
> taking offense at varies widely, even amongst members of the same group
> or tribe. So one guy may go to a tattoo show and tattoo his tribal art
> on some random guy with some money--but that doesn't mean other members
> of his tribe won't be offended at the work or the resulting tattoo.
Out of curiousity, would you consider the receiver of said tattoo a cultural
thief, or is the tattooer the cultural thief of his/her own culture (if that
makes sense)? And what would you think of another person seeing said tattoo,
asking if they can copy it, and the tattooed person said "sure"? Has the
second person committed cultural theft? Now that that tatttoo design is
"out", what happens if it hypothetically becomes "design of the week" down
at the local tattoo studio? Just curious, because I think this is how alot
of "sacred" information has 'leaked' out and now can't be put back.
Cheers,
Yowie
Catherine Karena
> I agree, to a point. I don't think that it's arrogance to 'try to make sense'
> of something for your own personal understanding.
That's where communication always falls down.
In one sense we probably agree - most Maori meetings regardless the setting look
to hear from everyone, and get the full range of perspectives and views and take
it as a given there is no 'one way' of seeing. If you take any object there is
an infinite number of positions in a sense you can take in viewing that thing,
yeah? From every point in space so many inches away from that thing, over time,
inside and out etc. The assumption being - you take as many different viewpoints
of what is discussed to 'see' as much of what is going on. And how it affects
people - for real. So that sense yes I agree - all personal perspectives valid.
And it's a given people take a 'subjective' approach. ( I don't even think there
is such really as 'objectivity')
BUT in another sense -nope. There is a very very different mindset to the
Western/ Dominant culture's that what we see literally is NOT seen by
Pakeha/Western/White etc. DEADSET.. (If you're interested I'll put up what I
think that mindset is later). Westerners filter stuff out - AND put stuff in
that's not even there where they approach you - continually. !!
I want to spell out as clearly as I can what I see, that all of you I think are
missing.
My assumption, the process of perception links people to their environment and
is critical to an accurate understanding of the world about us. Would you agree?
I.E:- Accurate intelligent analysis obviously requires _accurate_ perception.
Unless we have an accurate lay of the land, an accurate and complete picture of
a thing, situation etc, no matter what logic, rationale, ideology or stance we
take it will initiate poor solutions to any problem we endeavor to fix or
overcome if we do not have a clear picture of what is there. Fair enough?
A simple little illustration of this point is that old parable of the Elephant
and the three blind King's counsellors. Who though trusted and strictly honest
men, when investigating a new creature to their land (an elephant) by touching
various parts of the elephants body. Misreported the description of 'elephant'
to their King, because they each obtained only a
partial picture/account and put that forward as the Whole. IE one described the
creature like a rope having grabbed the tail, another a wall having felt it's
side another saying it was like a tree trunk having grabbed the leg. My
point: an inaccurate picture was given because their perception was
limited/inaccurate.
You can have a wide range of divergent opinions on anything - but what's if you
notice as many Natives the world over do, that all these divergent beliefs and
views about the world are made based on a perception that still is filtered
through a particular mindset such that you notice particular outcomes: ie: world
views/paradigms, 'tui-eyed' and 'split tongue' are a couple of examples I gave
elsewhere of Pakeha/White ways of seeing.
One advantage of being Maori and I notice those of other Native cultures who are
familiar with the 'original' etc is that you don't belong to one culture - we
have more than one set of glasses we look through, one of which which is a
completely different history/whakapapa to the other. The contrast between the
two is telling. Such that among many of my own people you talk continually of
walking in Two worlds.
Continuing..people tend to think of perception as a passive process. We see,
hear, smell, taste or feel stimuli that impinge upon our senses. We think that
if we are at all objective, we record what is actually there. Yet
perception is demonstrably an active rather than a passive process; it
constructs rather than records "reality." Perception implies understanding as
well as awareness. It is a process of inference in which people construct
their own version of reality on the basis of information provided through the
five senses.
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about - you should be familiar with
it already if you have done any Psychology course. But go through it anyway so
we're on the same page.
Go to the following URL:
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/ngeruita/fig1.gif
What did it say? Do this exercise first and then come back and continue
reading...
..
..
..
..
Don't be lazy do the exercise, anyhoo. :) (I'm in 'teacher' mode to get up
Woody's nose)
..
..
..
Give this activity to a few people to read also and note what they get.
Typically you will notice that most if not all don't notice there is an extra
preposition in two of the signs (the). Even though it's in black and white - our
culture 'edits' out what is actually there. Do you understand what I'm saying?
It is not a belief, a philosophy or an opinion that there
is an extra 'the' - it's a fact. That mindset reconstructed reality to something
other than what was there.
And THIS is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about taking our stories,
myths etc and re-interpreting them. Actually this mindset - sees EVERYTHING
differently. I notice most have assumed I'm advocating Nothing to do with Native
spirituality. (One of those automatic 'putting stuff in' that's so typical).
Just the opposite, I'm very clear unless certain things are SEEN - major - huge
problems in the world that affect us all can't be fixed - unless althernative
ways of seeing are -Seen-.
Plain ignorance is not that an issue - handling that. But the Arrognace or the
'given' that there your way of looking at the world is 'norm' is incredibly
frustrating to get pst.
I say LOUDLY that Pakeha are actually missing seeing important things in the
real world that are in fact there, because of particular mindsets that filter
out important information. Things they need to see in order to come to workable
solutions to problems that are affecting us and them. And my anger at "The
Pagan" is that you are on one hand saying all the stuff 'we' agree with - but
still having the same way of seeing.
(Actually I feel happy now, I've worked out what's the 'issue' for me is.)
Since it's a 'concrete' thing it's not about 'theorizing' or 'philosophising'
it's about finding ways to get them to take a step back and 'to re-look' and
then point out to them the missing parts. I've noticed when you do get a Pakeha
to stop and look, they -see- those missing things, and their perception changes
quite dramatically.
Yowie might be interested in this - in Australia the "Bush University' set up by
an Aboriginal tribe is doing Just this thing. What happens for Pakeha coming to
the Bush University the world over is that a world opens up that wasn't
available to them before. It's something that for many is quite profound
experience. Although when they cotton on to it - the first response is fear.
And when the go back to their own 'world' they can see - literally- things that
they missed.
Cheers
Kat
Kat
I've basically been ignoring you because I think you are what you
project onto me. And like many you 'add' a lot onto my words that
hasn't been suggested let alone said. And I doubt saying otherwise is
going to be heard.
> >One who makes assumptions that there is a Pan_Native I.E that there is one
> >Native American religion, one Mâori religion, one Aboriginal' etc etc. Making
> >the assumptions that there is one culture or one type of spirituality. When in reality indigenous people have unique and diverse identities, cultures and
> >spiritualities tied to their land, heritage, family and tribe.
> snip
>
> There is, similarly, no -Pan-Pagan community. Yet you feel justified
> in assuming there not only *is* one, but that we are inherently bad
> unless we can *prove* it to you otherwise... Is that fair? Or even
> realistic?
I am well aware that there is vast diversty amongs the Pagan community
- I spent a heck of a lot of time going to Real life Pagan/Wiccan
gatherings, did two 'online courses' for two years, got a collection
of some 30 odd 'recommended' books, worked with a couple of Pagans one
of Irish background another Iberrian to help put their stuff online. I
find helping gives me opportunity to learn whilst making a
contribution.
(For Tamara Inanna's site is here:
http://www.angelfire.com/in/spiritwicca/)
So why assume I see One type of Pagan? That's not my experience. Those
inital years got me excited that there was a 'movement' amongst
western cultures to acquire some important understandings that were
more healthy than the 'man against nature, subdue the world type
'christianish' thinking. Which I think are extremely important, for
example:
We are a part of this world.
We are made of those who went before, our ancestors are us.
We are made of the same flesh as the animals, we live breath and share
the same water, air, soil and food with every other life form.
Everything we do effects everything else.
We are not 'seperate' or 'apart' from this world. (And it is insanity
to think so and loneliness to feel it so.)
We are shaped, influenced by the 'land' that surrounds us.
We are born into this world in the same way as other mammals. Each and
every life form has its special purpose in the grand ecosytem, and all
are to be respected. All life is sacred, each its own unique
intelligence and spirit.
BUT - I notice that when ever I come across a Pagan (as they define
themselves) don't even get me started on "New Agers" consitently the
treatment with my culture has been theft and appropriation. Typically.
So I suppose it makes me a Bigot to come back and enquire of the
larger group as to what's that about. I shouldn't check to see how my
view of the world fits with those concerned? I should not ask, should
not look, should not enquire and certainly NOT enter into dialogue
with as many as I can access. You see I think THAT is a bigotted
attitude - and the comments expressed here, that thats how I should
act get an attitude of either 'blank double take', roll of the eyes,
laughter, WTF? or 'god how sad' depending on what I'm reading. I'm
happy to find out if I'm seeing a limited picture, or I'm ignorant of
other stuff going on - if I was like the people expressing these views
than I would act according to their prejudicial assumptions.
Anger is not hatred. If some one is upset that think the behaviours of
cultural abuse is so rude they would Never do such a thing and are
angry that anyone would think so and say so, pretty much gets a happy
feeling from me. Nice to know. You're problem is??
AND if consistently Pagans are acting that way to one group of people
- that Does affect you because my response of anger to that treatment
is an honest and legitimate one. It's from a real person, others share
that. You can demonise them for their experiences if you like. That's
pretty standard with most. And I ignore people that say it's 'racist'
or 'prejudicial' to think so - when I am going on consistent
experience.
I'm interested in comments that suggest the sub set might be too small
- there's a rational response (thanks Baird) but in the main the
responses like yours, are a 'tit' for 'tat' based on assumption I mean
*you* personally.
I said "the pagan" - it's becoming an image, it IS becoming an
attitude amongst a wide number of indigenous people eg have a look at
Daven's experiences. Why wouldn't you want to know about it? It
affects you? I get the impression if you don't see what you see, than
it's 'wrong'.
Particularly when the complaints being made against eg Maori are the
SAME experiences that *you* have in being Pagan! Hullo?? To make
things clear the 'anger' feeling is not "you suck and ought to curl up
and die" it's a why the hell is every pagan except for Nutmeg that I
meet act like this when it comes to my culture? AND yes there is a
really strong anti feeling developing because of those behaviours -
stick your head in the sand?
> > Why do these standards *not* apply to you? Please explain to the
> group. if you can.... Because I honestly don't think you can, but I am
> willing to give you a chance to try... Then, maybe we can *discuss*
> instead of *bash.*
Oh how big of you. Patronisation gets the 'rolls the eyes' look.
Don't you enjoy bashing though? I think to be honest with the views
you express you just are on a righteous trip and getting off on it. So
you go girl.
And I'll go get a cafe laite.
Kat
William Woody
> > Keep in mind that opinions as to what is cultural theft or what is worth
> > taking offense at varies widely, even amongst members of the same group
> > or tribe. So one guy may go to a tattoo show and tattoo his tribal art
> > on some random guy with some money--but that doesn't mean other members
> > of his tribe won't be offended at the work or the resulting tattoo.
>
> Out of curiousity, would you consider the receiver of said tattoo a cultural
> thief, or is the tattooer the cultural thief of his/her own culture (if that
> makes sense)? ...
Totally context sensitive question--it depends on why the person
receiving the tattoo went to get it, and why the person doing the tattoo
did it.
> ... And what would you think of another person seeing said tattoo,
> asking if they can copy it, and the tattooed person said "sure"? Has the
> second person committed cultural theft? Now that that tatttoo design is
> "out", what happens if it hypothetically becomes "design of the week" down
> at the local tattoo studio? Just curious, because I think this is how alot
> of "sacred" information has 'leaked' out and now can't be put back.
Keep in mind that from my perspective, I could care less how this
information leaked out--and for the very reason you imply with your
question above. My only issue would be if the guy at the local tattoo
studio then hung a sign outside claiming that he was a "sacred Maori
tattoo artist" rather than some guy following a cool tribal-like pattern.
Lucida
>Lucinda,
>
>I've basically been ignoring you because I think you are what you
>project onto me. And like many you 'add' a lot onto my words that
>hasn't been suggested let alone said. And I doubt saying otherwise is
>going to be heard.
It's Lucida, BTW, you seem to be nit-picky, so I will return the
favor...
I would highly suggest that you re-read your initial and subsequent
posts.... I did not *project* your statement that pagans are your
enemy.
>
>> >One who makes assumptions that there is a Pan_Native I.E that there is one
>> >Native American religion, one Mâori religion, one Aboriginal' etc etc. Making
>> >the assumptions that there is one culture or one type of spirituality. When in reality indigenous people have unique and diverse identities, cultures and
>> >spiritualities tied to their land, heritage, family and tribe.
>> snip
>>
>> There is, similarly, no -Pan-Pagan community. Yet you feel justified
>> in assuming there not only *is* one, but that we are inherently bad
>> unless we can *prove* it to you otherwise... Is that fair? Or even
>> realistic?
>
>I am well aware that there is vast diversty amongs the Pagan community
>- I spent a heck of a lot of time going to Real life Pagan/Wiccan
>gatherings, did two 'online courses' for two years, got a collection
>of some 30 odd 'recommended' books, worked with a couple of Pagans one
>of Irish background another Iberrian to help put their stuff online. I
>find helping gives me opportunity to learn whilst making a
>contribution.
>
I still do not see where that makes you an authority... Your posts
have not shown any indication that you think of us as anything but a
monolithic block, all evil and out to steal from you. Go back and
re-read them. All you say is "you guys." You bash over and over
without any knowledge of who you are bashing. Take a look, it is there
in print.
>(For Tamara Inanna's site is here:
>http://www.angelfire.com/in/spiritwicca/)
>
>So why assume I see One type of Pagan? That's not my experience.
You present all your posts in terms of seeing one type of pagan. If
that is all you present, then why would we see you any differently? We
are not psychics, my dear... At least not all of us.
Read your posts with an objective eye and tell me if they do not
convey the impression that all pagans are alike, with few exceptions,
and those only after *proof* was provided to you. Please, do so.
Those
>inital years got me excited that there was a 'movement' amongst
>western cultures to acquire some important understandings that were
>more healthy than the 'man against nature, subdue the world type
>'christianish' thinking. Which I think are extremely important, for
>example:
>
>We are a part of this world.
>We are made of those who went before, our ancestors are us.
>We are made of the same flesh as the animals, we live breath and share
>the same water, air, soil and food with every other life form.
>Everything we do effects everything else.
>We are not 'seperate' or 'apart' from this world. (And it is insanity
>to think so and loneliness to feel it so.)
>We are shaped, influenced by the 'land' that surrounds us.
>We are born into this world in the same way as other mammals. Each and
>every life form has its special purpose in the grand ecosytem, and all
>are to be respected. All life is sacred, each its own unique
>intelligence and spirit.
>
>BUT - I notice that when ever I come across a Pagan (as they define
>themselves) don't even get me started on "New Agers" consitently the
>treatment with my culture has been theft and appropriation. Typically.
>
So you feel justified in making every Pagan *prove* that they are not
this *typical* pagan construct before you will even allow them a basic
level of respect? Because that is what you said to Matthew...
>So I suppose it makes me a Bigot to come back and enquire of the
>larger group as to what's that about. I shouldn't check to see how my
>view of the world fits with those concerned? I should not ask, should
>not look, should not enquire and certainly NOT enter into dialogue
>with as many as I can access. You see I think THAT is a bigotted
>attitude - and the comments expressed here, that thats how I should
>act get an attitude of either 'blank double take', roll of the eyes,
>laughter, WTF? or 'god how sad' depending on what I'm reading. I'm
>happy to find out if I'm seeing a limited picture, or I'm ignorant of
>other stuff going on - if I was like the people expressing these views
>than I would act according to their prejudicial assumptions.
>
It makes you a bigot when you come to a group that ypu have little or
no knowledge of and make sweeping accusations. You put question marks
at the end, but the were not questions in any sense of the word. That,
my dear, is where the bigorty comes in. When you make sweeping
generalizations and require *proof* of someone who owes you none, just
so that you will stop berating them for crimes they, themselves, did
not commit. No one objects to discussion of these topics. The
objection is to the attitude and many of the statements you have made.
It is not too much for us to expect that if you come here, you will
not make false accusations and blanket statements that are patently
offensive.
Your points can be made with civility and courtesy, especially if you
expect those courtesies returned to you. And it is important that your
points be heard.
>Anger is not hatred. If some one is upset that think the behaviours of
>cultural abuse is so rude they would Never do such a thing and are
>angry that anyone would think so and say so, pretty much gets a happy
>feeling from me. Nice to know. You're problem is??
>
My problem is that even after you had a chance to realize that you
were targeting the wrong people, you did nothing to correct the
mistake. You continued with the bashing. It seems almost a habit with
you. I have watched you say some very nasty things to some people whom
I know to be very nice, just because they were attempting to *discuss*
the issues with you.
You have some very valid issues. But you prevent them from being
*discussed* rationally because you throw in so much crap. Check your
baggage. You will get a lot farther. And you really need to go
farther. It is very important.
>AND if consistently Pagans are acting that way to one group of people
>- that Does affect you because my response of anger to that treatment
>is an honest and legitimate one. It's from a real person, others share
>that. You can demonise them for their experiences if you like. That's
>pretty standard with most. And I ignore people that say it's 'racist'
>or 'prejudicial' to think so - when I am going on consistent
>experience.
>
It *is* prejudicial to assume that all members of a group are the
same, and to require them to *prove* to you, one at a time that they
are not. That is the definition of *prejudice,* the act of pre-
judging.
Does my reaction of anger at how you have treated *us* surprise you? I
am not pre-judging, but basing my objections on your demonstrated
behaviour.
I am not attempting to demonize you- merely to smack you upside the
head so that you can realize that you are muddying the water with your
hatred- or anger if you prefer.
These are issues that are *very* important. Too important for you to
allow the petty crap to obscure them. Your current attitude alienates
a lot of people that you should be making allies. This *hurts* your
cause. And it *is* a good cause.
Have I gotten your attention yet?
>I'm interested in comments that suggest the sub set might be too small
>- there's a rational response (thanks Baird) but in the main the
>responses like yours, are a 'tit' for 'tat' based on assumption I mean
>*you* personally.
>I said "the pagan" - it's becoming an image, it IS becoming an
>attitude amongst a wide number of indigenous people eg have a look at
>Daven's experiences. Why wouldn't you want to know about it? It
>affects you? I get the impression if you don't see what you see, than
>it's 'wrong'.
>
I am fully aware what the impression of Pagan is... That is why I go
out of my way to correct it whenever possible- including when someone
comes to the newsgroup and makes outrageous accusations.
>Particularly when the complaints being made against eg Maori are the
>SAME experiences that *you* have in being Pagan! Hullo?? To make
>things clear the 'anger' feeling is not "you suck and ought to curl up
>and die" it's a why the hell is every pagan except for Nutmeg that I
>meet act like this when it comes to my culture? AND yes there is a
>really strong anti feeling developing because of those behaviours -
>stick your head in the sand?
>
I do *not* think you should stick your head in the sand. But, there
are many ways to fight. The method you are using now is not very
effective, and will hurt you in the long run. Let go of the anger long
enough to get perspective. Let go of what you feel is a *typical*
pagan. A *typical* white, a *typical* anything. Now, stand back and
look. Don't require *proof* that someone is not what you think them to
be. Don't withhold respect until some is offered. Many people will
just withdraw theirs. And you need as much of it as you can muster.
You have some very important issues. Don't allow your personal
feelings to obscure them. Because that is what you are doing.
>> > Why do these standards *not* apply to you? Please explain to the
>> group. if you can.... Because I honestly don't think you can, but I am
>> willing to give you a chance to try... Then, maybe we can *discuss*
>> instead of *bash.*
>
>Oh how big of you. Patronisation gets the 'rolls the eyes' look.
>Don't you enjoy bashing though? I think to be honest with the views
>you express you just are on a righteous trip and getting off on it. So
>you go girl.
>And I'll go get a cafe laite.
>
>Kat
>
Think about what I have said while you have that cafe laite. I am not
against you, only your methods. If I had to bash you with a two by
four to get that through to you, then I am glad that I did. If you
still do not get it, I will bash you again. The issues you have are
too important for this crap. Anger begets anger, prejudice begets
prejudice. Break the cycle. If not for yourself, then for the issues
you hold dear. Do it now. Please.
Lucida
Tamara Eddy
>
> Go to the following URL:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/folk/ngeruita/fig1.gif
>
> What did it say? Do this exercise first and then come back and continue
> reading...
> ..
This is going to be a long one, so bear with me. I'm also going to make
myself unpopular. That having been said, I'll dive right in.
You are never going to be able, IMHO (in my humble opinion) to get any one
person (exceptions will be noted in a moment) to see 'the entire elephant'.
Why? Because people see things from their own perspectives. Each person's
perspective is made up of a) their cultural background, b) their own
personal experiences, c) their individual needs (whether physical,
emotional, spiritual, etc). I'm sure their are more categories, but let me
continue. All of these things come together so that when a person 'looks'
at something, hears something, touches something, his/her mind unconsciously
(in many cases) filters that stimuli to attach *meaning*.
This is somewhat confusing, so let me give an example:
To use your example of the extra 'the' in the pictures - yes, I did see
them, along with the extra 'a' in the second triangle. However, it was
not an immediate observation. There were several steps my mind went
through. In the first step, my mind filtered out the extra words because it
was looking for the 'meaning' inherent in the whole picture, followed by the
meaning in each of the triangles. "What does this mean?" is usually the
first thing interpreted by the mind, and in that regard, the mind will
subconsciously filter out extraneous bits of information that interfere with
attaching meaning. 'Meaning' is contextual, and therefore very subjective.
(BTW, you did the same thing in reverse - as did I, when first seeing
Lucida's name - of placing an 'n' in it which, in reality, is not there. My
mind is used to seeing the name 'Lucinda', and therefore subconsciously
added the extra letter. It took seeing her name a couple of more times, in
which I first thought there to be a typo, and then realised that her name
really is 'Lucida'.)
The second step I went through was to look at the actual words used. In
doing so, my mind did not filter out the extra words, but instead jumped on
them, as they now interfered with 'how is this sentence constructed'. I
don't know if this is a product of being a language teacher, or because I do
too many puzzles as a hobby (crosswords, wordsearches, find the hidden
message puzzles), but either way, it is a result of my own personal
experiences.
Do you see where I'm going? If I had not had the 'training' to look at the
pictures in a different manner, I would not have seen the extra words until
you told me that they were there. Is this truly a characteristic inherent
only to 'Western' or 'dominant' culture? I don't think so, but would leave
it to others to give responses for a different culture.
(snip)
Let me give you a behavioural example. I took my son to the park one day.
My son is autistic, and one of his problems is transitioning from one
activity to another. Because of that, he screams, fights, and runs away
when it's time to leave. This particular day he engaged in all of these
reactions, to the point that I had to pick him up and carry him to my van,
kicking, screaming and fighting. A police officer walked by just then. Not
knowing me, the situation, or my son's disability, how do you think he
responded? He has to interpret what he is seeing, based on his experience
and training, to decide if this is a case of a child being kidnapped or a
case of a relative/caretaker trying to remove an out-of-control child. How
he responds (whether leaving the situation alone, asking the woman if she
needs help, or arresting her) depends on his interpretation of the
situation - his 'mindset'.
> Give this activity to a few people to read also and note what they get.
> Typically you will notice that most if not all don't notice there is an
extra
> preposition in two of the signs (the). Even though it's in black and
white - our
> culture 'edits' out what is actually there. Do you understand what I'm
saying?
> It is not a belief, a philosophy or an opinion that there
> is an extra 'the' - it's a fact. That mindset reconstructed reality to
something
> other than what was there.
>
> And THIS is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about taking our
stories,
> myths etc and re-interpreting them. Actually this mindset - sees
EVERYTHING
> differently. I notice most have assumed I'm advocating Nothing to do with
Native
> spirituality. (One of those automatic 'putting stuff in' that's so
typical).
> Just the opposite, I'm very clear unless certain things are SEEN - major -
huge
> problems in the world that affect us all can't be fixed - unless
althernative
> ways of seeing are -Seen-.
In this case, I'm not sure if the problem *can* be fixed on a wholescale
basis. From what I can see, there are only two solutions to this problem:
1) to change the culture A (that is the one misinterpreting the stories) so
that is can 'see' them as culture B (the culture from which the stories
originated) does. That is, so that the context of the stories is such that
identical 'meanings' can be derived from the standpoint of both culture A
and B. This takes decades, if not longer, to do, and is only done if
culture A sees a need or a benefit to itself for doing so. (No value of
'dominant' culture is necessary here, just 'different' cultures). 2) Change
the perspective of each individual member of culture A- through heavy
exposure/immersion in culture B, training, etc. - so that each may interpret
the story 'correctly' (ie: derive the same 'meaning' from the story that a
person from culture B would).
>
> Plain ignorance is not that an issue - handling that. But the Arrognace or
the
> 'given' that there your way of looking at the world is 'norm' is
incredibly
> frustrating to get pst.
Within a given culture ('A', for example) feeling that way is going to
happen, because everyone around you sees things the way you do. That's not
necessarily arrogant. It, in fact, only becomes an issue when a person from
culture A interacts with a person from any other culture. A hermit in the
backwoods of Tennessee, who never interacts with anyone except other people
from Tennessee is not being arrogant because he/she cannot see things from
another perspective. Ignorant, but not arrogant, as he/she has never had
exposure to another point of view, and has likely not been taught to see
things from any other perspective.
>
> I say LOUDLY that Pakeha are actually missing seeing important things in
the
> real world that are in fact there, because of particular mindsets that
filter
> out important information. Things they need to see in order to come to
workable
> solutions to problems that are affecting us and them. And my anger at "The
> Pagan" is that you are on one hand saying all the stuff 'we' agree with -
but
> still having the same way of seeing.
You are going to encounter this with members of any group outside of yours.
Cultural misunderstandings or 'culture shock' occur whenever members of
different cultures and traditions interact. This is not just a problem of
the 'Pagan'. In fact, misunderstandings often occur between members of the
*same* culture for the same reason - people being incapable of interpreting
from another's perspective.
>
> (Actually I feel happy now, I've worked out what's the 'issue' for me is.)
>
> Since it's a 'concrete' thing it's not about 'theorizing' or
'philosophising'
> it's about finding ways to get them to take a step back and 'to re-look'
and
> then point out to them the missing parts. I've noticed when you do get a
Pakeha
> to stop and look, they -see- those missing things, and their perception
changes
> quite dramatically.
You would have the same results with any open-minded individual from any
culture. The closed-minded ones will never see, no matter what you show
them, or how hard you try.
> Yowie might be interested in this - in Australia the "Bush University' set
up by
> an Aboriginal tribe is doing Just this thing. What happens for Pakeha
coming to
> the Bush University the world over is that a world opens up that wasn't
> available to them before. It's something that for many is quite profound
> experience. Although when they cotton on to it - the first response is
fear.
>
> And when the go back to their own 'world' they can see - literally- things
that
> they missed.
>
This is not a judgement but a statement of fact - I'm sure that there are
things about my culture (that being the mish-mash that constitutes the
American culture) that you would misinterpret/not see/overreact to for
exactly the same reasons. There are things in the oriental cultures that
both you and I would miss (unless you have extensively studied that culture,
which I have not). This is natural, and the only solution is training or
massive exposure to either teach one to see from another's perspective, or
to at least give that individual an appreciation or respect for another's
view, even if he/she is unable to truly understand it.
--
Tamara (Solitaire)
"Just try your best, try everything you can
And don't you worry what they tell themselves when you're away"
--Jimmy Eat World, "The Middle"
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Give this activity to a few people to read also and note what they get.
> Typically you will notice that most if not all don't notice there is an extra
> preposition in two of the signs (the).
Actually, there's an extra article (no prepositions) in all three signs.
Rowan
Lucida wrote in message <3d57c633....@news.earthlink.net>...
GO LUCIDA!!!!
The indigenenous spirituality thing has been discussed here before. When it
was discussed rationally and politely, I actually took some notice and
thought about my actions in the area.
Am I aware there is a problem? Yes.
Does Ms. Karena's manner inspire me to give a shit? Not a fucking chance.
BB
Rowan
--
Canterbury, New Zealand
William Woody
> Catherine Karena <kat...@ol.com.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Give this activity to a few people to read also and note what they get.
> > Typically you will notice that most if not all don't notice there is an
> > extra preposition in two of the signs (the).
>
> Actually, there's an extra article (no prepositions) in all three signs.
Which makes me wonder what a precognative optical illusion has to do
with people's mindless mistreatment of indigenous symbols? One is a
function of the way the brain wires itself up when people learn to read,
the other with people's lack of awareness, due to a lack of
understanding or of education.
Most of the population can gain awareness; they just need to be told.
But precognative optical illusions are like the blind spot in your eyes:
something you can learn to watch for, but not something you can learn to
grow beyond.
Synnoveah J Cooke
<wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>(I don't mean to imply some of the stuff isn't beautiful or well-made;
>I'm particularly fond of blackwork pottery, and own a couple of
>hundred-dollar bowls of fairly intricate design. But I look at that
>pottery not as a sacred objects of worship, but as a particularly
>beautiful examples of artwork made by a Native American artist.)
Ok..that all makes a bit more sense. I think most any of the Native
Indian artwork I have, has been gifted to me by people of different
tribes. With the exception of a couple blankets I picked up at a
trading post on the way to TX, cuz it was snowing and my legs were
cold. Love those blankets..:)
Catherine Karena
What a cool post! :) I'm going to work my thoughts out along the way. :)
>You are never going to be able, IMHO (in my humble opinion) to get any one
person (exceptions will be noted in a moment) to see 'the entire elephant'.
Why? Because people see things from their own perspectives. <
I agree and disagree. It's a given isn't it - that people see things from their
own perspective? How can you not? And it's a given that any one person can not
see the entire elephant. Isn't it really only a problem when the 'one
perspective' is assumed/understood to be the entire? Or that only a few similiar
perspectives aren't allowed to be given? It's not a problem with Maori culture
with those who speak Te Reo, because the language/grammar design recognises who
is the speaker, who are the people you are talking to, who are Not in the
conversation, what is the object of the dialogue between the two or more in
Relation to where the observer stands- and those in the dialogue. That's a
mindset that has as a given -that 'truth' is a degree of perspective. That you
are only speaking from what you can or can not see - and in a context of 'where'
you are and everybody else is. It's a given that to find the 'truth' you
multiply the 'eyes' to get as many different perspectives as possible. Everyone
speaks. So you can get a more accurate lay of the land.
In the website we are doing for cultural appropriation I've been look ing for
illusions that 'mess with your head. To illustrate the importance of getting the
full picture as opposed to a small one. I came across a good one. Where the
first image shows a woman running towards something or away from something
'upset', the next one expands the picture to show her and a guy behind her
carrying a large knife - another a cop behind the guy with the knife etc. The
picture expands each time and a 'different story' is suggested. The last frame
shows everyone running to a tree to cut a cat tangled in kite string on an upper
branch. `
Those types of illusions are tied to 'snap shot' articles and 'snap shot' real
life stories - of the hidden histories of people/s, the past as it really was.
Than tie that into current events - where you see how the 'tricks' of false
perception are re-played continually today. (That 'history' in fact hasn't
changed much). The reader gets the other side of the picture of things that are
not been shown to world as a whole. You are geting the edited version of the
media and mainstream culture, I was noting this strongly a couple of years back
with the Fiji Coup. Big BIG difference the story told by the US, OZ and NZ media
to the voice of the Fijians going out direct on the Internet.
I saw a typical example again straight after September/New York tower event.
Where they showed a picture of a Muslim woman celebrating. You were told she was
celebrating the destruction of the Tower. I knew automatically b.s was happening
because theres a trick that the Media use - where they narrow the frame of the
picture - you only see one small section. You saw her face and upper body but
not much more. And 'the story of what happening is *explained* by the media -
"And LOOK there's the Picture, the picture doesn't lie". A few days later on
the net - which I hunted down - I came across the expanded picture - she was at
a Wedding celebration. So I notice lower down as a teacher you are trained to
spot that 'the' exercise - well there are also skills to be had to learn how to
see when people are making the picture smaller to - get you to think or behave a
certain way.
It's the old Wizard of Oz scenario - read the sign: Don't look at the man behind
the curtain. Evil - is in deliberately limiting perception. Inanna my friend,
the history of her trad is very interesting particularly as they kept a record
of stuff going on that doesn't make the history books (
http://www.angelfire.com/in/spiritwicca/ ).
And if we are talking about cultural change - it can't happen unless you get the
voices that have been shut up to have a place to speak. And it does make a
difference when you do. I'll come back to the rest of your post. I say getting
the whole picture as a very strong impact on individuals and peoples as a whole.
The 'stolen generations' of the Australian Aborigine - much of the 'why' that
that thing continued is the perenial cover up, the hiding or the telling of only
one version of what was going on. When people got to hear the Full truth - that
starts to change 'the lay of the cultural land'. Heres a few links you
requested on that - the first is based around a movie they've made on that "The
Rabbit proof fence' and the other two are snap short stories from a "Sunday"
broadcast they put out a few years ago. (The first bit's not entirely accurate
the Stolen generations continued for longer than the 70's).
http://www.rabbitprooffence.com.au/NoIntroMain.html
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/ngeruita/Missingkoori.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/ngeruita/Missingkoori2.htm
With the Virtual University and because our two cultural websites are so popular
with Uni's and schools - link - target - it's again networking to get those
'skills' you need to learn the tricks of the trade in limiting your perspective
- from Meda, from History etc etc, out there.
But the point of my last post is that there are specific 'pakeha' mindsets that
by their nature in the dominant culture they screw everyone over entirely. A
recent post from Daven about his heritages was a case in point.
I odn't have much time - I'll give you an example of a "pakeha" mindset - that I
think is 'blinding':
The following is a post to Maori - to kick off a discussion on that forum about
what "pakeha" is. I hope it gets up everybody's nose :) It's one of the mindsets
I run into with Pagans and Maoritanga.
>>Rangikai' was telling me at one time that the old Mâori likened the Pakeha to
the Tui bird one reason being that that bird looks at you with 'one eye'… and it
got me to thinking about the differences between "Pakeha world view" and "Mâori
world view". I'm trying to get my head around some articles I'm working on
directed at a Pakeha audience. And
that one thing keeps coming up - getting across recognition that there are very
different ways of looking at the world. (…what I constantly find is that Pakeha
indicate that there is really only one world view; theirs and somehow everyone
else is just getting it 'wrong'.)
I need a sounding board, some help in form of support, debate, or dissension
(with reasons) here. So I wondered if we could start a discussion about what is
a Pakeha worldview and how you would communicate what we see to that creature?
I'm looking at first the broad lay of the land, the commonalities - those things
that stand out.
This 'one eye'-ism is one obvious example of a "Pakeha world view". It's as if
the Pakeha has some underlying belief that all processes, structures and
relationships can be reduced to a single element, that everything can eventually
be explained by one governing principle. For example in conversations, dialogues
in real life or on BBs, when a
person asks a question, I notice that people often assume that there must be
only one answer, and thus that if there's more than one answer then their task
is not finished and the question not really answered.
This is 'one-eyeism'. I notice it generates endless debates in the nature of
"This" versus "That". Because there can be only "one" answer. That you haven't
got it 'right' unless you brought it down to 'one answer' or 'standardized'
things so we have it 'straight'.
Reading over on the Ta Moko (Maori Tattoo) forum Mark made this comment: Its
the likes of Simmons (A Pakeha self appointed Maori expert) who love to
standardize our "various tribal ways" to their "one and only way" thinking, who
should look in the bloody mirror and ask if they should be tampering with our
stuff. If he wants to contribute - he
should slash at his own culture"<unquote>....Is another example of 'one-eyeism'
the need to take diversity and 'standardize' it to one way which they put a
label as "THIS is the REAL way of doing it - what it's about - what it IS". "The
one TRUE way". (And aren't there so many of them???)
It's as if there's a compulsion to reduce things to "definition" that has "this"
+ "this" + "this" to it's make up. And if things don't conform to that
definition everyone is getting it wrong.
These kind of comments are typical of "one eyeism" "the REAL ______(whatever)",
the "ONE and only", the true, the perfect.. Like a Real man is, a Real Mâori is,
a Real believer is…the TRUE believer, the Perfect car, house, cat, dog etc.
When you look at how at how they run their relationships and families, for
example, 'one-eyeism' is expressed in the belief that there is some single best
way, some ideal marriage, some perfect partner, some perfect way to look or act
to get there, and the goal is to get as close to that ideal as possible.
Therefore all possibilities are ranked on a hiearchy
- good, better, best --and that only the best one counts. There is a constant
comparison of lives; people, things and themselves to a single ideal, and points
are taken off for any way in which a person differs from that ideal. Open up
your newspaper, magazines turn on your radio or telly and it's everywhere the
'one way of being' your supposed to aspire
or look to. eg if you're female 'be skinny, smooth skin, model figure etc etc'
I was thinking "darwinism", "racism" and "eugenics" are other classic examples
of 'one eyeism". The racist has this one standard eg a set of beliefs, goals,
objectives and descriptions under the catorgory of 'white' for example. This is
'RIGHT' And everyone else is assessed on a sliding scale of how well they
approximate this 'standard' of 'white and
all that's associated with White'. In the old days they classified the races
according to their 'evolutionary development' on this scale of white is 'best';
Chinese and Jews were ranked higher on the scale than blacks which were at the
other spectrum. It's dangerous this 'one eyeism' of course when you have only
one set of values as the 'norm'
than other important values are ignored simply because they are not listed under
the 'one way'. A people that had a goal of maintaining the earth - is inferior
to one that had a goal of changing the earth. Because 'whites change the earth'
therefore that is 'advanced' and the other people are 'backward'.
It makes as much sense as one team of people playing rugby saying their superior
to group of people singing in a choir because they scored a try and the choir
didn't. You know what I'm saying? If you have to judge something judge according
to what people are trying to achieve and did they reach their goal, rather than
did they achieve the things they
weren't pursuing.
Anyhoo…that's ONE Pakeha world-view that's obvious to me… I can think of a few
more. But I'll put that up to get the ball rolling.<<
Later on the rest
cheers
Kat
Synnoveah J Cooke
wrote:
And that is one my kids and my favorite books as well.
Kat
> with people's mindless mistreatment of indigenous symbols? One is a
> function of the way the brain wires itself up when people learn to read,
> the other with people's lack of awareness, due to a lack of
> understanding or of education.
I'm using that perception illusion to define what I mean by 'mindset'.
In a discussion elsewhere when we talked about "Pakeha" mindset (in
two sense of the word 'Pakeha') everyone thought I meant 'theory',
'belief', 'opinion' etc. I'm talking about a way of looking at the
world that shapes how you read or interpret what people do. It's
relevant because when people read say a story on Mahuika - they tend
to reference their culture in giving an explanation and they they edit
out and put in stuff that has nothing to do with the story because of
that mindset.
> Most of the population can gain awareness; they just need to be told.
No, not really it's more than being told. It's like you're wearing
blue lens shades and you won't acknowledge you have their is yellow
because the shades turn them into green. There's no reference for
yellow.
> But precognative optical illusions are like the blind spot in your eyes:
> something you can learn to watch for, but not something you can learn to
> grow beyond.
Well, you can learn to look out for the articles - it's a skill. You
can learn to look out for when people are trying to narrow the picture
of what's going on about you.
I'll stick this other example up of a conversation about Pakeha
mindset off a Maori forum addressed to Maori.
'split tongue'
Regarding the "Tui" analogy, the other comment that the old Mâori made
was
that tongue of the Pakeha was split like that of the Tui (when they
prepared
it for cooking or something -). Which I think referred to the
duplicity of
speech; to say one thing but mean the other, I'm guessing. But it is
also
another useful analogy for another tendency of the Pakeha that is to
think
of the world in terms of opposites even though these opposites are
simply
two sides of the same thing. By making an artificial split he divides
the
world against itself by living out this illusion of opposition as if
it were
true.
In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency to
see
much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body, black and
white, or
male and female and describe these things in terms of divisions or
barriers
between them eg; mind versus body, spirit versus matter, male versus
female,
good versus bad. The thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because
there's
always a sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior
to
it's matching pair.
There's also along with this a tendency to see these things in
oppositon, if
you support one thing an automatic assumption is made that you oppose
the
other, whether you do or not. If you support Mâori you are anti-white,
if
you support women's rights you hate men for example.
This thinking has a tendency to automatically lend itself to an
antagonistic
or adversarial way of approaching the world and communicating. Or the
assumption that one thing must dominate the other the other must be in
submission to it. Eg mind over matter, heaven above earth, spirit over
matter, teacher over pupil, leader over subject, boss over employee,
etc.
You can see this cock-eyed kind of thinking dominate the courts,
politics,
talk shows….actually anywhere and everywhere.
It gets a bit loopy loo because where you have anyone do anything
that's
different to the 'norm' than those people who are 'different' are
automatically perceived to be attacking or opposing the other -
because
that's what that kind of thinking gives you. It stands to 'reason'
doesn't
it? *sarcasm* Because these things are naturally opposed…(not).
A most
obvious example, how many times you open the paper and someone's
saying gay
people wishing to live a married lifestyle are attacking 'the family'.
I
watched 60 minutes recently seeing zillions of people get bent out of
shape
with couples that don't intend to have children criticised for
'attacking
family life'. There are heaps of examples…just being Mâori is an
affront to
Pakeha culture have a read of some of Morriase's comments you'll soon
get
the picture. The Church I used to belong to came down very heavily on
women
who 'challenged' the Priesthood by showing any form of leadership or
authority. A sister missionary who was the best missionary on the
field
could not be praised publically as this 'challenged' Priesthood
dominance.
(Which was non-existant; on that particular mission the best
missionaries
were Mâori, Pacific Islander and women as a norm). Basically anything
that
is different must be opposed, must be the enemy or must be controlled,
subdued or made subordinate to the 'norm'.
Along with this thinking is the tendency to put things in camps
(obviously)
and to assume that you are either 'all this' or 'all that'. I was
talking to
this White American who married a coloured woman of some kind. He was
insistent that his daughter had to choose between 'white' or 'black'
you had
to be one or the other. ?? Sadly that kind of thinking is everywhere.
I haven't contrasted the Pakeha views with Mâori worldviews as yet. I
think
the Mâori worldviews offer more sanity that these types of thinking
when it
comes to PEOPLE. I think these types of thinking and others I'd like
to
discuss are Great for THINGS, for technology but it's obvious that the
Pakeha world is like some kind of idiot-savant - really clever to make
changes that will bring about the destruction of your own living space
-
because you have not thought out how to integrate these changes with
all
other aspects of what it means to be human or a part of this planet.
In
making this remark I'm not actually putting Pakeha down, but I'm
pointing
out that having only one set of world views dominating the world
doesn't
make for balance. Particularly Pakeha culture since it has an inherent
design that is destructive towards the natural world.
One of the reasons why I want to explore these different types of
views and
get a handle on what types of thinking uderlie what happens in the
world. Is
to highlight the importance of what Mâori have to offer the world in
alternative paradigms and models of thought that are based on more
natural -
system orientated - open ended ways of thinking. Ways of perceiving
and
talking that recognise multi-values and incorporates them into
operating
with others. Thinking doesn't reduce everything down to one or two,
and
insists on seeing, and valuing, everything that there is. All
existence, all
creatures all life is important -- there are many different ways to be
not
just "ONE" way, and all of them valid. There are lots of ways to
relate, to
form families, to be in the world, to be human."
Kat
> <snip>
>
> > Give this activity to a few people to read also and note what they get.
> > Typically you will notice that most if not all don't notice there is an extra
> > preposition in two of the signs (the).
>
> Actually, there's an extra article (no prepositions) in all three signs.
>
> Blessed be,
> Baird
<grin>
Catherine Karena
> Do you see where I'm going? If I had not had the 'training' to look at the
> pictures in a different manner, I would not have seen the extra words until
> you told me that they were there. Is this truly a characteristic inherent
> only to 'Western' or 'dominant' culture?
No, I am thinking the design of your culture would enable you to see a certain
way. BUT I think underlying the western culture there are some extremely
damaging ways of perceiving the world. Those things that are considered 'normal'
like the mental illness, violence in the homes, etc etc come out of a certain
design to that culture. I was at a Maori knowledge conference a year or so ago
and a Waikato lecturer in the Maori department I was talking too, was
complaining how pissed off he and *everyone* else was with the continual
American 'academics' coming down to Aotearoa to 'study the natives'. Down they
come to *explain* our culture according to the various theories they were
working on. There is no dialogue - how about we looked at the same thing and
tell each other what we see? Nope.
I think you when you have sick ways of looking at the world then you need to
explore different models of thinking than the ones that no matter the diversity
_still_ come out of that perspective.And therefore still miss important relevent
elements that are hidden by that mindset.
> I don't think so, but would leave it to others to give responses for a
> different culture.
> (snip)
>
> Let me give you a behavioural example. I took my son to the park one day.My
> son is autistic, and one of his problems is transitioning from one activity to
> another. Because of that, he screams, fights, and runs away
> when it's time to leave. This particular day he engaged in all of these
> reactions, to the point that I had to pick him up and carry him to my van,
> kicking, screaming and fighting. A police officer walked by just then. Not
> knowing me, the situation, or my son's disability, how do you think he
> responded? He has to interpret what he is seeing, based on his experience and
> training, to decide if this is a case of a child being kidnapped or a case of
> a relative/caretaker trying to remove an out-of-control child. How he
> responds (whether leaving the situation alone, asking the woman if she
> needs help, or arresting her) depends on his interpretation of the situation -
> his 'mindset'.
I don't think that's a mindset. Yeah he's taking a shot at working out what's
going on - but basially he doesn't know. Btw, what did the police man do? (If he
didn't stop and check what was going on to be sure, I think he needs a clip
around the ears.) A mindset is more like shaded glasses - if they're blue you
always get 'green' when you look at yellow. You can't 'see' yellow. And you
don't realise you are wearing glasses.
> In this case, I'm not sure if the problem *can* be fixed on a wholescale
> basis.
Ae, it can.
> From what I can see, there are only two solutions to this problem: 1) to
> change the culture A (that is the one misinterpreting the stories) so that is
> can 'see' them as culture B (the culture from which the stories originated)
> does. That is, so that the context of the stories is such that identical
> 'meanings' can be derived from the standpoint of both culture A and B. This
> takes decades, if not longer, to do, and is only done if culture A sees a need
> or a benefit to itself for doing so. (No value of 'dominant' culture is
> necessary here, just 'different' cultures). 2) Change the perspective of each
> individual member of culture A- through heavy exposure/immersion in culture B,
> training, etc. - so that each may interpret the story 'correctly' (ie: derive
> the same 'meaning' from the story that a person from culture B would).
I agree and disagree...and don't know. A culture that has a design of
destroying, polluting and exploiting, I'm sorry it needs to change. Western
culture most definately needs to change it's just a survival issue. Yes you need
to change the perspective of culture A, but I don't see why you need to have a
heavy exposure/immersion in culture B?
I've seen a powerful experiment set up in Australia to work at changing
perspectives - the Aborigine Bush University that was sent up by Ngarinyin
Aboriginal culture. It has a design of taking the visitor out of there
environment and learning of their ways first hand relevant to their needs. It's
not a university in the western sense.
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/ngeruita/Mowaljarlai.htm
Wananga O Aotearoa is kind of similiar - except Maori culture is very different.
(And very similiar) Wananga is the name for the ancient Maori schools of
learning - Wananga's teach -basically heaps of different things in a Maori
context. Eg - Before you start it's most likely you will spend a year to do a
Mahi Ora type programme - get given a free mobile phone - so you're networked
with everyone on the course, knowledge baskets - people are -pre-assessed on all
facets of their life so they can establish their life work in context and
integrated with all other aspects of themselves. Because a lot of Maori haven't
had much exposure to their own culture - so they sort out their life path first.
So same Maori principles - regardless of 'context' they apply. Very powerful -
that course alone they were getting 300 or so applicants through a DAY. The New
Zealand government capped (illegally) the Wananga's intake, running scared.
Because the education is 'a threat' to Pakeha culture. They also illegally
didn't pay them out the normal grants etc accredited schools are entitled too.
Tried very hard to make it so that the Wananga's would close down. Can't work -
the design of education is self-supporting.
But the Ngarinyin have put together a powerful way to show a different way of
seeing for the Non-aborginal Australian to see the country and their lives
differently. If I looked at it, I would say they are doing what is 'traditional'
for Maori, make the new comers tangata whenua - people of the land.
Essentially I see it as an education process - and a 'marketing' exercise to
get perceptions changed.Look at the main needs and requirements of the Western
culture -what's missing, what's harmful and provide proven solutions.
Eg - I'm working on E-learning - since it's a natural vehicle to push in a zero
failure rate in education. Like we do with training - putting projects together;
after school mentoring working against the one way Pakeha education system.
> > Plain ignorance is not that an issue - handling that. But the Arrognace or
> the 'given' that there your way of looking at the world is 'norm' is
> incredibly frustrating to get pst.
>
> Within a given culture ('A', for example) feeling that way is going to happen,
> because everyone around you sees things the way you do.
But in any given culture people don't see the way you do. There's more
commonality yeah - but it's often more illusionary. In common 'maori' in the old
sense maori communciations - people establish first where everybody is - common
ground and communicate in the here and now . Pakeha don't do that as an
automatic.
> That's not necessarily arrogant.
No, but I find a large part of western culture is an assumption that Whites
speak and interpret for 'those brown people' as one Pagan told me.
> It, in fact, only becomes an issue when a person from culture A interacts with
> a person from any other culture. A hermit in the backwoods of Tennessee, who
> never interacts with anyone except other people from Tennessee is not being
> arrogant because he/she cannot see things from another perspective. Ignorant,
> but not arrogant, as he/she has never had exposure to another point of view,
> and has likely not been taught to see things from any other perspective.
Well, the keys exposure.
> > I say LOUDLY that Pakeha are actually missing seeing important things in
> the real world that are in fact there, because of particular mindsets that
> filter out important information. Things they need to see in order to come to
> workable solutions to problems that are affecting us and them. And my anger at
> "The Pagan" is that you are on one hand saying all the stuff 'we' agree with
> - but still having the same way of seeing.
>
> You are going to encounter this with members of any group outside of yours.
> Cultural misunderstandings or 'culture shock' occur whenever members of
> different cultures and traditions interact. This is not just a problem of
> the 'Pagan'. In fact, misunderstandings often occur between members of the
> *same* culture for the same reason - people being incapable of interpreting
> from another's perspective.
Yes I agree and don't. Not being capable of interpreting from another's
perspective - is part of a particular culture if it's designed that way. And not
if it's not. And it's not a cultural issue in the sense sometimes of
understanding Another person's culture - but actually not understanding your
Own. One common myth I run into all the time I hate - is that all those bad
things that used to happen to indigenous people have stopped - en mass genocide,
slavery, sterolization of woman...the assumption that this is done. The days of
the White Imperialist going out and wiping out indigenous cultures for profit
etc. Slavery/disposable people by the Western world alone is effecting millions,
how come such a huge number of people aren't noticed? I say it's probably the
same reason - as it's always been. The present doesn't change much from the past
- if the mindset is still the same. (Ask me for some references if you don't
know what I'm talking about).
> > (Actually I feel happy now, I've worked out what's the 'issue' for me is.)
> >
> > Since it's a 'concrete' thing it's not about 'theorizing' or
> 'philosophising' it's about finding ways to get them to take a step back and
> 'to re-look' and then point out to them the missing parts. I've noticed when
> you do get a
> Pakeha to stop and look, they -see- those missing things, and their
> perception changes quite dramatically.
>
> You would have the same results with any open-minded individual from any
> culture. The closed-minded ones will never see, no matter what you show them,
> or how hard you try.
It's a numbers game as long as it's based in concrete/evidence -'truth' for real
- you change things from the ground up.
Cheers
Kat
>
>
Voxwoman
Kat wrote:
Could this be a result of untold generations of a monarchichal, feudal
structure where the majority of the population was not permitted to
speak thier minds? You were not allowed to backtalk the lord of the
manor (pretty much your Master) or you'd be punished (financially,
physically and in some cases, they'd kill you for "heresy" or
"treason"). That would cause a split in the psyche where you would think
your "true" thoughts, but say "what you think the other person wants to
hear" and the utterance doesn't necessarily have any basis in "truth" -
the speaker is attempting to get an outcome that is beneficial to him.
(just a thought).
And I wonder if the work "Pakeha" has the same connotations as the word
"goyim" (a Yiddish word for "non-Jew", which nowadays has a negative
connotation and can be equated as "outsider" but that's not exactly the
meaning). I find it interesting that I don't know an exact English
equivalent word for "goyim"
-Wendy of NJ
janet
<awy...@hpl.umces.edu> writes
>
>This reminds me of a comment attributed to Richard Adams (of _Watership
>Down_ fame) after someone made some seriously over-analyzed comments
>about how the book addressed practically every social evil and
>political event going on at the time.
>
>He replied with something along the lines of : I did? And here I
>thought I had just written a book to entertain my children.
>
>(Don't remember the exact quote, but you get the idea.)
This is all very much what I felt when reading all the academic stuff
that's written about Buffy TVS.
I kept wanting to scream, "IT'S A TV SHOW!!!"
--
janet
mwcnbf
wsallen
Tamara Eddy wrote in message ...>news:3D5497DA...@ol.com.au...
>> William Woody wrote:
>> > "Yowie" <yowi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
>> > To tell someone how they can or cannot go through the world is theft.
>> > It's theft of that person's right to choose for himself/herself. Of
>> > course there are limits: tribal heads were responsible for keeping the
>> > peace and preventing the inevitable fight or misunderstanding. And of
>> > course there is great shame (as told in the stories) not to contribute
>> > to the welfare of the tribe in some way. But if a child wants to learn
>> > how to make boats, it would be considered theft of that child's path if
>> > an adult were to scoop him up and say "no, you have to learn how to
make
>> > baskets."
>>
>> Same here.
>>
>So far I, too, agree with this concept of raising children. My parents
>never thought to *make* me follow one path or another. They only wished me
>to find something that I would be happy doing.
Random insert: My parents raised me like this too. Ie. they provided support
for the path I wished to take. I am an Australian (descended from other
Australians and English people), raised in a "Western" culture (and hey yeah
there *is* significant differences in it *s*). YMMV but I think all
cultures can have parental/family units that seek to dictate the *path*
their children take.
>(snip definition of cultural theft)
>
>> If you look at the submission they're trying to put through to the UN, I
>think
>> that term of 'intellectual property theft' in terms of the property being
>> tribal/people owned - is an approach taken because it's understandable in
>the
>> Western context. In our culture everybody is a guardian of the whole -
>everyone
>> owns if you can say that the Land for example (although that idea of
>ownerships
>> doesn't fit) - rather you have a responsibility for a certain area - for
>various
>> things. It is wrong to steal that responsibility from another. Outsiders
>just
>> arent qualified - particually when it comes to knowledge - they aren't
>qualified
>> to teach it - the responsibility is anothers.
>>
>> And that's the main point people are missing, and it is a common
arrogance
>in
>> Western culture to think because they can re-interpret something to 'make
>sense'
>> of it, that they 'understand'. They don't.
>
>I agree, to a point. I don't think that it's arrogance to 'try to make
>sense' of something for your own personal understanding. The arrogance
>would come in when someone thinks that because they 'get the gist' of
>something, they are now qualified experts who can teach it to someone else.
>
>An example - i know nothing of Maori culture except what you have expressed
>here. I do not pretend to 'know' or 'understand' your culture, although I
>have gotten 'a feel' for the things that you have been expressing. It
would
>be arrogance (not to mention ignorant) on my part to go out today and get
>into a discussion of Maori culture with someone and say, "Oh, yeah, I know
>about them. Here let me tell you what their culture is about."
I agree. Eg. If I observe, read about a particular meditation technique as
performed by XYZ culture/tribe and think it sounds interesting/could be of
use to me, and then implement it *for myself, in my own way* that would be
cultural borrowing/inspiration/sharing (whole concept here not just separate
words).
*IF* however I did all that and THEN represented/believed that it was a true
example of XYZ culture/tribe and/or subsequently represented that to other
people/cultures/tribes, then that would be self delusion/cultural theft.
>> > But you can steal parts of someone else's life.
>> >
>> > And if you want to get nitpicky, that's where I depart from Catherine
>> > Karena: her idea of theft seems to stem from the concept of
intellectual
>> > property theft. My ideas come from California Indian traditional
>> > concepts of theft of experience, related above.
>>
>> Actually you don't know where I'm coming from Woody. What you shared with
>above is
>> very similiar to how Maori educate their children. If you exchanged the
>> "Californian Indian" for "Maori" there's little difference in thinking.
>But when I
>> am talking to Whites - I try to relate in terms that they understand.
>
>Not necessarily a wise course of action. The people of this NG are very
>ecclectic. Try using your own words for your cultures ideas. If someone
>doesn't understand what you mean, (s)he'll ask, discuss, debate, attack,
>flame... Eventually a closer understanding will come to be.
>
>Although
>> let's face it I haven't 'shared' much --I'm enquiring. I haven't
>identified fully
>> what I think of as cultural theft. That's not what I'm here for.
>>
>>
>> > ... I have acknowledged that dominant cultures have tried to
>> > > wipe out the cultures that they dominate. The people whose culture
was
>> > > destroyed were robbed of their culture, it was taken away against
>their
>> > > will. If this is what Cat means by ling me and my culture a bunch of
>> > > thieves, fair enough. My culture wasn't the first and wasn't the last
>to do
>> > > it, I personally haven't done it, I refuse to have any personal guilt
>over
>> > > the fact that it has happened.
>>
>> Unfortunately I'm only getting 1 out of 3 posts showing up on my
>newsgroups for
>> alt.religion.wicca.moderated. If you reply to me I'd appreciate a CC: to
>my email
>> as not only mine but other emails aren't showing. Yowie's post didn't
show
>up -
>> Yowie, I'd appreciate that forwarded, thanks.
>>
>> A point I'll make on Yowie's comment is no, you shouldnt be guilty for
the
>acts
>> that you didn't participate in. But if you think times have changed that
>much, you
>> are very much mistaken. For example, it was only 14 or so years ago that
>the
>> practise of taking Aboriginals children stopped. In all that time and
even
>really
>> until very recently the last 2 -3 years or so - what White Australian got
>up and
>> said it was wrong? Land is still being removed and there is a new form of
>'taking'
>> happening that frankly your attitude supports.
>>
>
>I don't know the history here. Could you either post or email me about
>this? I sounds absolutely barbaric.
>
>Tamara
Yes it was.
The _brief version_ goes that in the early part of the 20th Century (and
late 19thC) the official view of the Australian Colonies and then Australian
government (gov. fed + state) was that the 'Aborigines' were a dying 'race'
and that all the govs. could do was to "smooth the pillow". Aborigines were
not recognised as citizens of Australia until 1967, when a referendum on
altering the Constitution to make them citizens passed with 97% of the vote.
The end result was that the govs. had an official program that removed
Aboriginal children from the care of their parents permanently and raised
them in institutions (from the little I know of the BIA in USA and in
Canada, it was vaguely similar). This continued on as official policy for
decades until the 1970s (this is from the various sources I know of, some
claim later dates. CK may be more familiar with those sources, though I
would note that 14 years ago was 1988 and AFAIK it was NOT govs. policy
then.). The shorthand term for those affected is the "Stolen Generation/s".
2-3 years ago was 1999-2000 and by then the wider Australian community
certainly did know about the Stolen Generations and how they were affected
(at least as much as someone who didn't go through it could know). As a
personal estimation I'd say this awareness dated from the early 1990s at
least.
The land or "Native Title" issue is ongoing and likely to be for some time.
Essentially when settled by the English, Australia was assumed to be 'terra
nullius' (without owners/uninhabited). The Aborigines were seen and
interacted with, but they were 'to primitive to bother about'.
In 1992 the High Court in the "Mabo" decision (Mabo vs. Queensland)
overturned this furphy and ruled that native title could still exist.
Subsequent legislation from the Federal Government sought to alter this
state of affairs in terms of some land titles, most notably 'freehold'
properties and 'pastoral leases' (Crown land, leased to graziers for up to
100 years) extinguished native title.
In 1996 in the "Wik" decision the High Court ruled that the granting of a
pastoral lease did not necessarily extinguish native title (freehold still
does).
Further decisions have been made in regards to native title 'sea rights' and
native title rights over mining leases.
A recent decision (which I know bugger all about having been much occupied
with a new job lately) affects the native title rights over mining leases,
ie. AFAIK mining leases may extinguish native title rights. I can NOT say
this with any certainty though.
NB. In Australia pastoral leases and mining leases can overlay each other,
eg. pastoral above ground, mining below.
Native title claims are proceeding throughout Australia as they are
initiated by the distinct tribes/family/regional groupings.
THIS IS A BRIEF _SUMMARY_!
Any other Aussies out there feel free to chip in further bits/extensions.
Cheers,
Heidi Aussie
Angela Wyatt
janet <ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Do you mean the Buffy paradigm to combating terrorism? I saw
a link to the article, but I just couldn't bring myself to read it.
Is it worth reading for entertainment value? :-)
>I kept wanting to scream, "IT'S A TV SHOW!!!"
"Sometimes a rabbit is just a rabbit!" Sorry, got caught up there
for a moment.
I wish I could recall the exact comment that prompted Adams' quip.
A lit professor in college was using the exchange as an example of
the problem of over-analysis going on. The general concensus was
he talking about a very specific new member of the faculty in
particular. (Who was convinced Robert Frost's "Mending Walls"
showed he was a split-personality who was a pro-Nazi in favor of
restoring slavery. I'm not kidding - after a semester with her, I was
turned off to poetry for quiet awhile. Scary thing was, she was a
somewhat famous modern poet.)
Angela
William Woody
> > Which makes me wonder what a precognative optical illusion has to do
> > with people's mindless mistreatment of indigenous symbols? One is a
> > function of the way the brain wires itself up when people learn to read,
> > the other with people's lack of awareness, due to a lack of
> > understanding or of education.
>
> I'm using that perception illusion to define what I mean by 'mindset'.
> In a discussion elsewhere when we talked about "Pakeha" mindset (in
> two sense of the word 'Pakeha') everyone thought I meant 'theory',
> 'belief', 'opinion' etc. ...
Well, if you don't define the term but just use it as if we should just
somehow "know" what you are talking about, then how are we supposed to
follow the bouncing ball?
Perhaps it makes you feel superior to those stupid "Pakeha" idiots out
there by using words like "Pakeha" that we don't understand and that
haven't been defined. Hell, if I wanted to play that game I could pull
out my Salinan dictionary and start coughing up terms no-one here would
get, either.
But if you do that, don't complain when people fail to understand your
point.
> ... I'm talking about a way of looking at the
> world that shapes how you read or interpret what people do. It's
> relevant because when people read say a story on Mahuika - they tend
> to reference their culture in giving an explanation and they they edit
> out and put in stuff that has nothing to do with the story because of
> that mindset.
>
> > Most of the population can gain awareness; they just need to be told.
>
> No, not really it's more than being told. It's like you're wearing
> blue lens shades and you won't acknowledge you have their is yellow
> because the shades turn them into green. There's no reference for
> yellow.
Even the color blind can know about color; they may not be able to
experience it and then *know* in the intuitive way those of us who are
not color blind can know it, but they can still understand.
I find your attitude, Kat, in this manner very bizarre.
You claim that you are trying to share and help others gain an
understanding of your points and your culture, so the Maori culture is
not trampled on. Yet anytime someone here tries to express a point which
shows that they are trying to understand, you shoot them down as someone
stuck in the "Pakeha" mindset--whatever the hell *that* is.
With all due respect, I submit that by drawing these undefined lines: by
separating the "Pakeha" from the "Tipuna", you have created for yourself
the very black and white world that you complained about when you wrote:
> In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency
> to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,
> black and white, or male and female and describe these things in
> terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body,
> spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. The
> thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because there's always a
> sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to
> it's matching pair.
Further, if I were to venture a guess, in the context you've used them,
"Pakeha" means "stupid", and "Tipuna" means "smart". By continuing to
lump everyone "out here" as "Pakeha/stupid", you deny the very
understanding you claim to be striving for.
Now I don't mind being called stupid--hell, I *know* I'm stupid about a
lot of things. But it almost seems as if your posts are not an exercise
in understanding, but just an exercise in your venting by calling us
stupid to our faces in a way that we don't understand, and in a way you
can then pat yourself on the back later.
> In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency
> to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,
> black and white, or male and female and describe these things in
> terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body,
> spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. The
> thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because there's always a
> sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to
> it's matching pair.
>
> There's also along with this a tendency to see these things in
> oppositon, if you support one thing an automatic assumption is made
> that you oppose the other, whether you do or not. If you support
> Mâori you are anti-white, if you support women's rights you hate
> men for example.
I would answer this, except that you haven't graced us with a precise
definition of "Pakeha", so obviously I cannot.
However, from an european cultural point of view, this "dualistic"
viewpoint is not universal by any stretch of the imagination. Sure,
Marxism and Hagelian philosophy presuppose a world of
"thesis/anthesis/synthesis", where opposites are mixed, either in
support of each other or in opposition, and unite to create a third
synthesis which is closer to the truth. But the diacritical philosophy
of Marx of seeing everyting as opposites has been rejected by nearly
everyone who isn't working as college professors in ivy-covered towers.
In fact, I submit that, by seeing the world as "Pakeha" and "Tipuna",
you are in fact seeing the world as the very opposites (with one,
"Tipuna", superior to the other) that you accuse the "Pakeha" of.
Further, I'm fascinated by some of your examples of opposites. The
"good" verses "bad" concept is intrinsic to Christianity and it's
offshoots--including LDS. Aren't you a mormon? As a point of theological
truth, mormonism intrinsically believes in Good and Evil--so, by
following LDS, you either buy into this "Pakeha" concept, or you
don't--at which point, you undoubtedly had to lie during some of the
initiatory rituals that the LDS puts it's membership through as they
reach certain points within their mormon career.
> This thinking has a tendency to automatically lend itself to an
> antagonistic or adversarial way of approaching the world and
> communicating. ...
Like your posts and subsequent followups demonstrate, such as when you
wrote in another post:
> No, I am thinking the design of your culture would enable you to
> see a certain way. BUT I think underlying the western culture there
> are some extremely damaging ways of perceiving the world. Those
> things that are considered 'normal' like the mental illness,
> violence in the homes, etc etc come out of a certain design to that
> culture. ...
'Just them damned Pakeha Westerners, advocating violence in the home.
They're not as superior as us Tipuna, because unlike the Pakeha, we
*know* that mental illness and violence in the homes is not normal.'
The only difference here is that when you talk about the opposition of
male and female, good and evil, mind and body--we all know what you are
talking about. (We may not agree; for example, I see the separation
between matter and spirit--one which is also intrinsic to LDS
theology--as rubbish.)
But when you talk about the opposition of the Tipuna and the Pakeha,
most of us don't even know how these terms are defined! All we can
gather from your posts is that we're "Pakeha", and, because we have a
"Pakeha mindset", we're somehow inferior in a way you have not
specifically defined. But that we "Pakeha" are inferior you have
repeated ad-nauseum.
> ... Or the
> assumption that one thing must dominate the other the other must be in
> submission to it. Eg mind over matter, heaven above earth, spirit over
> matter, teacher over pupil, leader over subject, boss over employee,
> etc. ...
Two things strike me as funny about this.
First, all of these oppositions (except perhaps "boss over employee")
are intrinsic to Mormonism. You *cannot* be Mormon unless you believe to
one degree or another in all of these oppositions and the superiority of
the former over the latter.
Second, none of these oppositions are intrinsic to Western thought. In
fact, some of these "oppositions" (such as teacher over pupil, leader
over subject and boss over employee) are antithetical to the culture of
the United States. Sure, we treat our leaders, bosses and teachers with
respect--but only <<in the context in which they are leaders, bosses and
teachers>>. Meaning that, during a class, we treat a teacher with
respect. But outside the classroom and the school where the teacher is
an authority figure, the United States is inherently egalitarian--that
is, we tend to see everyone as completely equal.
And in fact, if you followed our politics, you'd find that we tend to
treat our leaders anad our bosses as simulatneously superior and
inferior--subhuman power-hungry fools who we follow only because the
alternative is anarchy.
I'm sorry you have to create an inferior "Pakeha" so you superior
"Tipuna" can feel better about yourselves. But you really should get out
more and see western culture for what it is, rather than judging a
billion people based on the actions of a handful of academics who would
gut western civilization's founding priciples of egalitarnianism,
democratization and the like in a heartbeat if they had half a chance.
> You can see this cock-eyed kind of thinking dominate the courts,
> politics, talk shows….actually anywhere and everywhere.
*LOL!*
Talk shows are the epitimy of egalitarianism--even the lowest and
stupidest are considered equal and are given an equal voice to air their
laundry. That this has become a spectator sport rather than an equal
discussion only came recently from a handful of shows, such as Jerry
Springer, who realized the value of laughing at ourselves and our dirty
laundry.
And the fact that people watch these offensive demonstrations of
culturally vapid crap, and we keep making them dispite them having no
redeming value whatsoever--that only reinforces the egalitarian nature
of the United States. That is, it reinforces that everyone, even people
whose idea of "culture" is a painting of Elvis on a black velvet canvas,
get to have a say in what entertainment forms are on television, and not
just a handful of people in a "Ministry of Culture."
> It gets a bit loopy loo because where you have anyone do anything
> that's different to the 'norm' than those people who are 'different'
> are automatically perceived to be attacking or opposing the other -
> because that's what that kind of thinking gives you. It stands to
> 'reason'doesn't it? ...
'But we Tipuna, who think differently than you Pakeha, can see your
inherent inferiority and laugh.'
(Makes me wonder what the difference is between academic gatherings of
Maori talking about the inferiority of the 'Pakeha' west, and the Jerry
Springer show. Oh, I know: the Jerry Springer show is watched by more
people!)
William Woody
> Kia ora
>
> > Do you see where I'm going? If I had not had the 'training' to look at the
> > pictures in a different manner, I would not have seen the extra words until
> > you told me that they were there. Is this truly a characteristic inherent
> > only to 'Western' or 'dominant' culture?
>
> No, I am thinking the design of your culture would enable you to see a
> certain way. BUT I think underlying the western culture there are some
> extremely damaging ways of perceiving the world. Those things that are
> considered 'normal' like the mental illness, violence in the homes,
Oh, look: a stupid stereotype!
Not that you are going to pay any fucking attention, but if mental
illness and violence in the homes were considered "normal" in the West,
then why is it that violence in the homes is illegal, and we are working
on helping the mentally ill--which, by the way, is defined as a mental
considition which either the suffer does not like, or which renders the
sufferer unable to function?
In most native cultures, mental illness was solved by killing the
sufferer, not by curing him. (Setting the sick on iceburgs drifting out
to sea, or running them out of the village to starve--these are all
effectively death sentences.) And in most primtive cultures it was
necessary to weed out the mentally ill--survival of the group in most
primitive cultures took precidence to spending valuable resources on
humanitarian assistance. (And let's face it: if the entire village
starves to death, who will be left to help the ill?)
My understanding is that even amongst the Maori, violence was common
until the arrival of european settlers gave them a common enemy.
Violence was more common amongst the Maori than the California Indians
by virtue of natural geographic boundaries which separated different
tribes, and an abundance of natural resources which made competing for
food unnecessary.
> ... I was at a Maori knowledge conference a year or so ago
> and a Waikato lecturer in the Maori department I was talking too, was
> complaining how pissed off he and *everyone* else was with the continual
> American 'academics' coming down to Aotearoa to 'study the natives'. Down
> they come to *explain* our culture according to the various theories they
> were working on. ...
*shrug*
The egalitarian nature of American society encourages differing points
of views, even those which are antithetical to the nature of our society.
This means we get a lot of fucking stupid academics 'round these parts.
But judging the entire west for a bunch of academics whose only virtue
and claim to academia is a point of view which challenges conventional
western thinking (but which, at face value, is rather stupid) ignores
the nature of how the west works.
I mean, next think you know, you'll be lumping the whole lot of us into
a single label, and accuse us of having an inferior mindset.
Oh, wait--you did do that.
> I think you when you have sick ways of looking at the world then you
> need to explore different models of thinking than the ones that no
> matter the diversity _still_ come out of that perspective. And
> therefore still miss important relevent elements that are hidden by
> that mindset.
Well, that's a lovely straw-man of the west you've created there. Right
fancy, that straw man.
The funny part is how you accuse the rest of us in this newsgroup of "us
verses them" thinking--when the only one who has been engaging in
sweeping generalities (and throwing out undefined terms to label these
groups to boot) has been you.
[Rest snipped]
You know, I'd look very long and hard in the mirror if I were you.
janet
>On 13 Aug 2002 16:40:08 GMT, in alt.religion.wicca.moderated
>janet <ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <3d56bf1a....@mail.earthlink.net>, Angela Wyatt
>><awy...@hpl.umces.edu> writes
>>>
>>>This reminds me of a comment attributed to Richard Adams (of _Watership
>>>Down_ fame) after someone made some seriously over-analyzed comments
>>>about how the book addressed practically every social evil and
>>>political event going on at the time.
>>>
>>>He replied with something along the lines of : I did? And here I
>>>thought I had just written a book to entertain my children.
>>>
>>>(Don't remember the exact quote, but you get the idea.)
>>
>>
>>This is all very much what I felt when reading all the academic stuff
>>that's written about Buffy TVS.
>
>Do you mean the Buffy paradigm to combating terrorism? I saw
>a link to the article, but I just couldn't bring myself to read it.
>Is it worth reading for entertainment value? :-)
There's a whole JOURNAL out there...
>
][]
>
--
janet
mwcnbf
Rowan
>....
> > In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency
> > to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,
> > black and white, or male and female and describe these things in
> > terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body,
> > spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. The
> > thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because there's always a
> > sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to
> > it's matching pair.
>
>Further, if I were to venture a guess, in the context you've used them,
>"Pakeha" means "stupid", and "Tipuna" means "smart". By continuing to
>lump everyone "out here" as "Pakeha/stupid", you deny the very
>understanding you claim to be striving for.
Not actually what it means.... see my other post.
But there's a nice big split in Maori conceptualisations, which I notice
hasn't been mentioned. I shan't presume to say it's a dualism, but 1 split
tends leave 2 things, no?
What about the tapu/noa thing, Catherine? How does that fit with your
remarks?
(Everyone else: very approximately sacred/ordinary. 'Tapu' isn't the easiest
to translate.)
BB
Rowan
Brock Ulfsen
William Woody wrote:
> With all due respect, I submit that by drawing these undefined lines: by
> separating the "Pakeha" from the "Tipuna", you have created for yourself
> the very black and white world that you complained about when you wrote:
T'other way around... White and black.
But considering Kat's starting position, I can see how the
Pakeha = stupid (instead of white/anglo)
Tipuna = smart (instead of Maori)
mistaken translations could occur. And this of course explains why you
didn't see Kat's position as being racist.
....Brock.
--
A wolf in your inbox.
An identity,
as illusory as ASCII.
William Woody
> William Woody wrote:
> > With all due respect, I submit that by drawing these undefined lines: by
> > separating the "Pakeha" from the "Tipuna", you have created for yourself
> > the very black and white world that you complained about when you wrote:
>
> T'other way around... White and black.
"Black and white" is how the saying goes.
> But considering Kat's starting position, I can see how the
>
> Pakeha = stupid (instead of white/anglo)
> Tipuna = smart (instead of Maori)
>
> mistaken translations could occur. And this of course explains why you
> didn't see Kat's position as being racist.
Except...
I know she used "white." So does my grandfather. Unless you also are
operating under a very lose definition of "race" (which would also lump
Native Americans into the same group as Chinese), "white" is not a race.
Further, Kat goes on to suggest that the Maori are not a single race,
but are instead "the people of the land" or whatever. That is, they are
united through a common culture and experience.
Kat
> somehow "know" what you are talking about, then how are we supposed to
> follow the bouncing ball?
If you don't follow something, or don't know something you _ask_ don't
you? Most of the conversations had on American board use words,
phrases, and aspects of American culture that I'm not familiar with.
Than mix other people in, it's the same. And often they use phrases
that has a different conotation to what I'm familiar with over here,
but have learnt that's what it means over there.
Words mean what people mean them to mean I suppose.
> > Perhaps it makes you feel superior to those stupid "Pakeha" idiots out
> there by using words like "Pakeha" that we don't understand and that
> haven't been defined. Hell, if I wanted to play that game I could pull
> out my Salinan dictionary and start coughing up terms no-one here would
> get, either.
Perhaps you're projecting yourself onto me hmmm? Some words in the
English language just don't fit, they just don't have those concepts
or the connotation I mean. So I'll use our own. Isn't that so with
other cultures?
> But if you do that, don't complain when people fail to understand your
> point.
I haven't made such a complaint. If they come back and ask what I mean
- I get to explain. I only tell you to take a hike when you add a lot
of crap that is no where mentioned or even suggested - eg Yowie's
assumptions for example under her Multi-cultural post - re 'pure'
culture. Or saying I say/think/or feel 'all whites are evil' or "I
hate pagans" etc. Go to my posts and point out to me where you get
THAT from. You're just making assumptions, demonising and getting your
knickers in a knot.
> ... I'm talking about a way of looking at the
> > world that shapes how you read or interpret what people do. It's
> > relevant because when people read say a story on Mahuika - they tend
> > to reference their culture in giving an explanation and they they edit
> > out and put in stuff that has nothing to do with the story because of
> > that mindset.
> >
> > > Most of the population can gain awareness; they just need to be told.
> >
> > No, not really it's more than being told. It's like you're wearing
> > blue lens shades and you won't acknowledge you have their is yellow
> > because the shades turn them into green. There's no reference for
> > yellow.
>
> Even the color blind can know about color; they may not be able to
> experience it and then *know* in the intuitive way those of us who are
> not color blind can know it, but they can still understand.
>
>
> I find your attitude, Kat, in this manner very bizarre.
Well, that's a good thing at least.
> You claim that you are trying to share and help others gain an
> understanding of your points and your culture, so the Maori culture is
> not trampled on.
Actually I make no such claim - I originally had a bitch about Pagans
who have anything to do with Maori culture - doing the very things
they hate being done to them. And challenging *you* to come up with
some reasons for that. Originally. Not I'm hanging around because I'm
finding some interesting comments, some interesting people, or points
of view... and I enjoy getting up your nose Woody.
> Yet anytime someone here tries to express a point which
> shows that they are trying to understand, you shoot them down as someone
> stuck in the "Pakeha" mindset--whatever the hell *that* is.
If I look at Yowies comments and use that as an example - how can you
get an understanding if you decide what I feel or think - that has no
reference to things stated, let alone what I believe. When I notice
the remarks indicate that label/box mentality - I say "Pakeha". More
on that later.
>
> With all due respect, I submit that by drawing these undefined lines: by
> separating the "Pakeha" from the "Tipuna", you have created for yourself
> the very black and white world that you complained about when you wrote:
That's silly Woody, I don't assume Americans to be different to what
they are - should they stop using all the terms and funny sayings,
weird phrases because I've not come across them? How boring would that
be? And they're all so different anyway. Am I supposed to conform to
some unstated rule that I have to talk 'the same way' when there isn't
anyone kind of way of expressing yourself here anyway? If you don't
know ask - I thought Tipuna was clear in the context of the sentence.
Essentially means 'ancestors'.
> > In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency
> > to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,
> > black and white, or male and female and describe these things in
> > terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body,
> > spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. The
> > thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because there's always a
> > sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to
> > it's matching pair.
>
> Further, if I were to venture a guess, in the context you've used them,
> "Pakeha" means "stupid", and "Tipuna" means "smart". By continuing to
> lump everyone "out here" as "Pakeha/stupid", you deny the very
> understanding you claim to be striving for.
And your 'guess' is very telling I think about where you are coming
from.
> > Now I don't mind being called stupid--hell, I *know* I'm stupid about a
> lot of things. But it almost seems as if your posts are not an exercise
> in understanding, but just an exercise in your venting by calling us
> stupid to our faces in a way that we don't understand, and in a way you
> can then pat yourself on the back later.
Do you have an inferiority complex or something?
> > In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency
> > to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,
> > black and white, or male and female and describe these things in
> > terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body,
> > spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. The
> > thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because there's always a
> > sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to
> > it's matching pair.
> >
> > There's also along with this a tendency to see these things in
> > oppositon, if you support one thing an automatic assumption is made
> > that you oppose the other, whether you do or not. If you support
> > Mâori you are anti-white, if you support women's rights you hate
> > men for example.
>
> I would answer this, except that you haven't graced us with a precise
> definition of "Pakeha", so obviously I cannot.
There is no 'precise' definition of Pakeha. The 'split tongue' post
you noticed was to a Maori audience - so we already know the meanings
of Pakeha. I was throwing out what I saw - and seeing if others saw
the same. There's a common ground - we all kind of at the same place
in the dialogue - there's a history that we're referencing that's
similiar-ish. If you're asking :) here's a bit of history to give the
meanings.
Ha - breath of God/life , Pake-ha - references a disconnection to the
flow of life, the breathing in and out of life, a lack of seeing the
underlying patterns that stand under the physical world kind of thing,
Pa-keha - Pa = house/environment - keha references those behaviours
that indicate that without a connection to the flow you pollute the
world around you - eg dirty the air, sea, land etc, develop diseases
of mind, body and spirit. I think all in all it's a perspective - a
way of being in the world. And in those times it was assumed it was
given by - the history and experiences of the European,American etc
etc that came in contact with "maori". There's no adjectives in Te Reo
(maori language) - we have status verbs - which give that
something/someone whatever, is in a 'state of being', with the
associated assumption that anything can be in a particular state at
one time and it's not a fixed state. That's just where that
thing/person is at this point in time in relation to a particular
thing. Eg In english you would say "A jacket is red" In Maori you
would be saying that "A jacket is in the state of redness" The
underlying assumption that this redness came on it at some time, and
it's changing in it's degree of redness over time, and who knows it
may end a completely different state of being in the future in
relation to being red. Along with the fact that it has a lot of other
states of being it's being at anyone moment.
So being Pakeha is not a fixed thing - you can be Pakeha one moment on
this thing, and not at another time.
Pakeha has the sense of 'stranger' because the behaviours that came
with the European were strange. And also because it's hard to make
them family. "Pakeha" has come to colloquially mean "white New
Zealander". But you can be a Maori Pakeha in that sense of word or a
Pakeha Maori if you think of Maori in a 'race' sense.
OT comment: If you get what I'm saying you can see why asking "Who am
I?' is an irrelevant question. There's no 'labels' - although you're
stuck with working with that if that's the dominant discourse.
There weren't really any "Maori" in the sense of 'the race of Maori'.
Ori -is life, natural, nature based processes, laws, principles etc.
Making "pakeha' into Tangata Whenua - people of the land makes them
'maori'. That aboriginal tribe that I spoke of elsewhere is 'maori' -
so's the Chinese tribes up in the wop wops away from the city, etc etc
'indigenousness' has that sense of 'maori'.
Around about 1840 it came into the European/White New Zealanders vocab
a word that meant us - maybe because we kept on saying we were 'maori'
- (normal/natural/real) and there act 'pakeha'. Also when Maori set up
the powerful Young Maori party - where the word indicated 'clear and
intelligible' - (because nature based processes are)- it was seen I
think to mean a word that they could use instead of 'native'.
But in the real sense of the word you can have Pakeha Maori - Maori in
the 'race' sense which are alienated from that seeing and have
'assimilated' the dominant discourse. And Maori Pakeha - where you
have white people who have become Tangata whenua - people of the land
- nature based.
For any of the Maori words used - just to mess with your head, there
is never going to be 'one' meaning because the words tend to be
concept based- literally you can have an infinite number of meanings
depending on the context of the conversation. But because they
reference concepts based on laws, principles and processes in nature -
it's not really a problem for those that speak Te Reo.
> However, from an european cultural point of view, this "dualistic"
> viewpoint is not universal by any stretch of the imagination. Sure,
> Marxism and Hagelian philosophy presuppose a world of
> "thesis/anthesis/synthesis", where opposites are mixed, either in
> support of each other or in opposition, and unite to create a third
> synthesis which is closer to the truth. But the diacritical philosophy
> of Marx of seeing everyting as opposites has been rejected by nearly
> everyone who isn't working as college professors in ivy-covered towers.
No it's not universal, but on this board I can see it operating - this
underlying assumption of opposites are in opposition to each other.
It's a big part of Western/Pakeha culture. And it's present. eg Male
superior to female; brother hood of man; oh yeah, you don't have any
sisters huh?
> > In fact, I submit that, by seeing the world as "Pakeha" and "Tipuna",
> you are in fact seeing the world as the very opposites (with one,
> "Tipuna", superior to the other) that you accuse the "Pakeha" of.
Read the above. We do actually see 'twos' male - female, light - dark
etc etc. But we don't hold that these things are in seperate to each
other. That they are intrinsically in opposition or adversaries, that
one of the pairs is 'good' the other 'bad' or less good, or weaker, or
needs to be in 'submission to' etc. We see these dualities and as
connected - tied to - intrinsic to each other existing. There is no
inherent 'superior' or 'inferior' to male or female. Darkness eg is
not 'evil'.
> > Further, I'm fascinated by some of your examples of opposites. The
> "good" verses "bad" concept is intrinsic to Christianity and it's
> offshoots--including LDS. Aren't you a mormon?
Nope, I was, I got my name removed from the records. The Kahungunu iwi
decided to explore that - the Rangitane my other side explored in the
main Anglicanism. It was quite common if there were different
denominations clamouring for converts - that a Rangitira (Chief/means
one who weaves people together) would simply say "okay half of you on
this side, half on that side" you lot are Catholic and you lot are
Presbyterian.
Maori if you notice tend to tiki tour around to every religion going
and don't really get hung up on it, historically and still pretty true
today. From a historical perspective not one or the other ways
considered more 'true'-(one way only) than the other - just; you get
this coming out of going that way, and you get that if you explore
this.
.As a point of theological truth, mormonism intrinsically believes in
Good and Evil<-that's debateable. Maori - has that concept of 'good'
and 'evil' - but much or most of that which is said to 'good' or
'evil' in Pakeha culture, has no inherent good or evil to it. They're
things labelled as 'good' or 'evil', that just are. One of the three
baskets of knowledge that Tane got from Io contained 'evil' - 'evil'
is seen as necessary for the growth processes as 'good'. That's a
topic in a half.
>so, by following LDS, you either buy into this "Pakeha" concept, or
you
> don't--at which point, you undoubtedly had to lie during some of the
> initiatory rituals that the LDS puts it's membership through as they
> reach certain points within their mormon career.
I didn't have to lie about anything, you lurve to demonise don't you?
You can't make up a lot of 'reasoned out' guff that if this is so,
this means that and therefore it follows that that MUST of happened
coz that's how things are. People's lives and actions, and how things
work don't fit the box coz you think they do. You want to know
someone's story - you ask. And though there's commonality they're not
reduced to the simple 'answer' you put up.
> > This thinking has a tendency to automatically lend itself to an
> > antagonistic or adversarial way of approaching the world and
> > communicating. ...
>
> Like your posts and subsequent followups demonstrate, such as when you
> wrote in another post:
Do you know what 'enemy' means in Maori? It means 'angry friend'. When
I choose to be angry and 'go to war' I do for a time being at least.
But it's not a modus operandi. It's a bit different to a way of
thinking that makes 'war' with 'everything' - makes continually
'camps' as permanent things. In any one conversation your 'enemy'
takes the role of friend, to enemy and back again.
> > > No, I am thinking the design of your culture would enable you to
> > see a certain way. BUT I think underlying the western culture there
> > are some extremely damaging ways of perceiving the world. Those
> > things that are considered 'normal' like the mental illness,
> > violence in the homes, etc etc come out of a certain design to that
> > culture. ...
>
> 'Just them damned Pakeha Westerners, advocating violence in the home.
> They're not as superior as us Tipuna, because unlike the Pakeha, we
> *know* that mental illness and violence in the homes is not normal.'
Interesting prejudices are coming to the fore. Mental illness and
violence in the homes is NOT 'natural' a 'given' or 'normal'. It's not
part of the 'human' condition. It's a LARGE part of Maori culture Now
because of the effects of 90 percent genocide, colonization,
inferiority-programming, assimilation etc etc. Show me please where
Pakeha Westerners are advocating violence in the homes? Or I say they
do?? If you have a design to your culture that has essential stuff
missing - that's going to show up as illnesses, disease of mind, body
and spirit. It's NOT intrinsic to being human.
> > The only difference here is that when you talk about the opposition of
> male and female, good and evil, mind and body--we all know what you are
> talking about. (We may not agree; for example, I see the separation
> between matter and spirit--one which is also intrinsic to LDS
> theology--as rubbish.)
Well you definately don't understand LDS theology. I'll put up some of
the comments of others in that discussion to show some different
takes, and view points on the topic.
> > But when you talk about the opposition of the Tipuna and the Pakeha,
> most of us don't even know how these terms are defined!
You know it's kind of funny. You talk yourself into such a tiz. "When
I talk about that opposition between the Tipuna and the Pakeha" - oke
doke you go and find those words Woody. Funny the 'editing' that takes
place.
>>All we can
> gather from your posts is that we're "Pakeha", and, because we have a
> "Pakeha mindset", we're somehow inferior in a way you have not
> specifically defined. But that we "Pakeha" are inferior you have
> repeated ad-nauseum.<<
And that convoluted tripe above demonstrates interpreting others
through a 'pakeha' mindset. There is no such thing as 'inferior' or
'superior' when it comes to people. You can't box people and all they
are under stupid labels like that. Prior to the Pakeha coming out -
the various prophecies said that He would bring an new kind of
knowledge - a type we'd never seen before. And THAT was looked forward
to. The death and disease prediced -wasn't. You design a culture it
gives you certain outcomes, you design it another you get others. But
there is that which is unhealthy to that way of thinking -stuff
missing.
> > ... Or the assumption that one thing must dominate the other the other must be in submission to it. Eg mind over matter, heaven above earth, spirit over matter, teacher over pupil, leader over subject, boss over employee,
> > etc. ...
>
> Two things strike me as funny about this.
>
> First, all of these oppositions (except perhaps "boss over employee")
> are intrinsic to Mormonism. You *cannot* be Mormon unless you believe to
> one degree or another in all of these oppositions and the superiority of
> the former over the latter.
Mormonism as an expression of American/Utah culture yeah. I
experienced that on my mission. As a theology - no.
> > Second, none of these oppositions are intrinsic to Western thought. In
> fact, some of these "oppositions" (such as teacher over pupil, leader
> over subject and boss over employee) are antithetical to the culture of
> the United States. Sure, we treat our leaders, bosses and teachers with
> respect--but only <<in the context in which they are leaders, bosses and
> teachers>>. Meaning that, during a class, we treat a teacher with
> respect. But outside the classroom and the school where the teacher is
> an authority figure, the United States is inherently egalitarian--that
> is, we tend to see everyone as completely equal.
Actually I think that's the 'press' on the topic, but to be frank I
find American's anything but 'egalitarian'. By the way are you
speaking for ALL AMERICANS ::shock horror:: Ya *Must* be ....lol. Coz
you're saying "our" and 'we' - shame on you Woody. ...lol.
> > And in fact, if you followed our politics, you'd find that we tend to
> treat our leaders anad our bosses as simulatneously superior and
> inferior--subhuman power-hungry fools who we follow only because the
> alternative is anarchy.
Hmmmmm.... yeah ooookay. :)
> > I'm sorry you have to create an inferior "Pakeha" so you superior
> "Tipuna" can feel better about yourselves.
LOL. Your words are looking pretty funny at this end Woody.
>But you really should get out more and see western culture for what
it is, rather than judging a billion people based on the actions of a
handful of academics who would gut western civilization's founding
priciples of egalitarnianism, democratization and the like in a
heartbeat if they had half a chance.<
> > You can see this cock-eyed kind of thinking dominate the courts,
> > politics, talk shows….actually anywhere and everywhere.
>
> *LOL!*
I think you're living in la la land. :)
>
> Talk shows are the epitimy of egalitarianism--even the lowest and
> stupidest are considered equal and are given an equal voice to air their
> laundry. That this has become a spectator sport rather than an equal
> discussion only came recently from a handful of shows, such as Jerry
> Springer, who realized the value of laughing at ourselves and our dirty
> laundry.
>
> And the fact that people watch these offensive demonstrations of
> culturally vapid crap, and we keep making them dispite them having no
> redeming value whatsoever--that only reinforces the egalitarian nature
> of the United States. That is, it reinforces that everyone, even people
> whose idea of "culture" is a painting of Elvis on a black velvet canvas,
> get to have a say in what entertainment forms are on television, and not
> just a handful of people in a "Ministry of Culture."
You can see this cock-eyed kind of thinking dominate the courts,
politics, talk shows actually anywhere and everywhere. Not just talk
shows.
> > It gets a bit loopy loo because where you have anyone do anything
> > that's different to the 'norm' than those people who are 'different'
> > are automatically perceived to be attacking or opposing the other -
> > because that's what that kind of thinking gives you. It stands to
> > 'reason'doesn't it? ...
>
> 'But we Tipuna, who think differently than you Pakeha, can see your
> inherent inferiority and laugh.'
Well, if you are that way inclined that's the inference You Woody
draw. And you edit out those words that demonstrate that is Not what's
being said.
> (Makes me wonder what the difference is between academic gatherings of
> Maori talking about the inferiority of the 'Pakeha' west, and the Jerry
> Springer show. Oh, I know: the Jerry Springer show is watched by more
> people!)
And see the above comments.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Read the above. We do actually see 'twos' male - female, light - dark
> etc etc. But we don't hold that these things are in seperate to each
> other. That they are intrinsically in opposition or adversaries, that
> one of the pairs is 'good' the other 'bad' or less good, or weaker, or
> needs to be in 'submission to' etc. We see these dualities and as
> connected - tied to - intrinsic to each other existing. There is no
> inherent 'superior' or 'inferior' to male or female. Darkness eg is
> not 'evil'.
What I find most interesting about this is the apparent presumption that
this is somehow necessarily different from the belief sets of some
people on this newsgroup.
- Darkhawk, chock full o'irony
--
Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
And if love remains, though everything is lost
We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost.
- "Bravado", Rush
William Woody
> > Well, if you don't define the term but just use it as if we should just
> > somehow "know" what you are talking about, then how are we supposed to
> > follow the bouncing ball?
>
> If you don't follow something, or don't know something you _ask_ don't
> you? ...
Sure. And if I find that you continue to use terminology that is
unfamiliar, and berate people for stumbling when they don't get it, I
also call attention to the problem.
> > > Perhaps it makes you feel superior to those stupid "Pakeha" idiots out
> > there by using words like "Pakeha" that we don't understand and that
> > haven't been defined. Hell, if I wanted to play that game I could pull
> > out my Salinan dictionary and start coughing up terms no-one here would
> > get, either.
>
> Perhaps you're projecting yourself onto me hmmm? Some words in the
> English language just don't fit, they just don't have those concepts
> or the connotation I mean. So I'll use our own. Isn't that so with
> other cultures?
Then you will never successfully share your ideas, because you are using
a language we do not understand. You may as well switch to Greek for all
it matters.
Not that I care one way or the other--but you will be wasting an awful
lot of bandwidth if you have no intent to communicate your ideas clearly.
> > But if you do that, don't complain when people fail to understand your
> > point.
>
> I haven't made such a complaint. If they come back and ask what I mean
> - I get to explain. I only tell you to take a hike when you add a lot
> of crap that is no where mentioned or even suggested - eg Yowie's
> assumptions for example under her Multi-cultural post - re 'pure'
> culture. Or saying I say/think/or feel 'all whites are evil' or "I
> hate pagans" etc. Go to my posts and point out to me where you get
> THAT from. ...
>From the following:
From Catherine Karena (kat...@ol.com.au)
> In the many different indigenous communities around the world
> Australian Aboriginies, Aotearoa Maori (Native New Zealanders) Native
> American/American Indians etc there is emerging a common 'enemy' - the
> Pagan.
>
> Our identities, spiritual knowledge, ways, traditions are under attack
> as the Pagans, Witches and Wiccans appropriate our ways, and set
> themselves up as authorities, misinform people on our teachings, ways,
> ceremonies and basically do careless and often blissfully ignorant
> abuse to the indigenous around the world.
> ... You're just making assumptions, demonising and getting your
> knickers in a knot.
I'd say assuming that you hate Pagans when you say "there is emerging a
common 'enemy' - the Pagan."
Be that as it may, I don't personally give a shit if you hate Pagans, so
why you are trying to hoist that onto my shoulders is beyond me.
> > You claim that you are trying to share and help others gain an
> > understanding of your points and your culture, so the Maori culture is
> > not trampled on.
>
> Actually I make no such claim - I originally had a bitch about Pagans
> who have anything to do with Maori culture - doing the very things
> they hate being done to them. And challenging *you* to come up with
> some reasons for that. ...
*Me?*
If you wanted to ask *me* something, you could have just e-mailed me
directly, and saved us a whole lot of time and energy with this God
forsaken flame war.
Or are you assuming that I'm a Wiccan just because I hang out in this
newsgroup and make a pain in the ass of myself?
> ... Originally. Not I'm hanging around because I'm
> finding some interesting comments, some interesting people, or points
> of view... and I enjoy getting up your nose Woody.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should be careful writing things like that in a moderated newsgroup
where "trolls" (defined as people who post inflamatory material solely
for the purpose of pissing people off) are prohibited.
Besides, I see you haven't been keeping very good track of your secret
newsgroup decoder ring. It's been I who has defended your ass on
accusations of racism--even to the point of being called racist myself.
I strongly disagree with you and I think you are being a jackass.
However, I also believe the notion of cultural destruction and cultural
theft are important, and I believe you have made some very interesting
points, dispite being a jackass.
Don't fuck that up now by playing pseudo-trolling games.
> > With all due respect, I submit that by drawing these undefined lines: by
> > separating the "Pakeha" from the "Tipuna", you have created for yourself
> > the very black and white world that you complained about when you wrote:
>
> That's silly Woody, I don't assume Americans to be different to what
> they are - ...
*LOL!*
Sorry, but I don't think you ment to say this, because--at least from
this end of the wire, you appear to be saying:
"I don't stereotype Americans; they just *are* a stereotype..."
> > > Now I don't mind being called stupid--hell, I *know* I'm stupid about a
> > lot of things. But it almost seems as if your posts are not an exercise
> > in understanding, but just an exercise in your venting by calling us
> > stupid to our faces in a way that we don't understand, and in a way you
> > can then pat yourself on the back later.
>
> Do you have an inferiority complex or something?
No; I just don't suffer the ego-inflation typical of Usenet and typical
of people who cannot see beyond their own tiny and immature little
worlds.
I'm a firm subscriber to the notion that the more I learn, the less I
truely know. Humility is born out of that knowledge.
> > > In explanation; underlying untold Pakeha dialogue is the tendency
> > > to see much of the world in terms of pairs like mind and body,
> > > black and white, or male and female and describe these things in
> > > terms of divisions or barriers between them eg; mind versus body,
> > > spirit versus matter, male versus female, good versus bad. The
> > > thinking's still kind of 'one eyed' because there's always a
> > > sense of this or that one being better, preferred or superior to
> > > it's matching pair.
> > >
> > > There's also along with this a tendency to see these things in
> > > oppositon, if you support one thing an automatic assumption is made
> > > that you oppose the other, whether you do or not. If you support
> > > Mâori you are anti-white, if you support women's rights you hate
> > > men for example.
> >
> > I would answer this, except that you haven't graced us with a precise
> > definition of "Pakeha", so obviously I cannot.
>
> There is no 'precise' definition of Pakeha. The 'split tongue' post
> you noticed was to a Maori audience - so we already know the meanings
> of Pakeha. ...
There is no definition, but we already "know" what it means?
You assume both too much and too little from you reading audience. And
frankly, your use of "Pakeha" strikes me as having the same flavor as
the use of other prejoratives, such as "nigger", "wop", "gook", "digger"
or one of a thousand other racial epitaths.
It sure doesn't just mean "outsider", as if you ment to just say
"outsider" you would have.
So much for cultural sensitivity.
> Ha - breath of God/life , Pake-ha - references a disconnection to the
> flow of life, the breathing in and out of life, a lack of seeing the
> underlying patterns that stand under the physical world kind of thing,
> Pa-keha - Pa = house/environment - keha references those behaviours
> that indicate that without a connection to the flow you pollute the
> world around you - eg dirty the air, sea, land etc, develop diseases
> of mind, body and spirit. ...
If Pakeha is Pakeha in part because of a dualistic and fixed mindset,
then your comment "...[westerners] pollute the world around you - eg
dirty the air, sea, land etc, develop diseases of mind, body and spirt"
is Pakeha.
That is, you placed westerners into a dualistic and fixed pigeonhole.
Pakeha.
> ...I think all in all it's a perspective - a
> way of being in the world. And in those times it was assumed it was
> given by - the history and experiences of the European,American etc
> etc that came in contact with "maori". There's no adjectives in Te Reo
> (maori language) - we have status verbs - which give that
> something/someone whatever, is in a 'state of being', with the
> associated assumption that anything can be in a particular state at
> one time and it's not a fixed state. ...
But you are now locked in the English Language, a Pakeha language, and
using Pakeha (fixed, dualistic) terminology to express your reservations
on the western mentality--a mentality you immediately place in a box as
"fixed and dualistic." (!)
I don't think you appreciate the irony here, but I sure as hell do!
> .. That's just where that
> thing/person is at this point in time in relation to a particular
> thing. Eg In english you would say "A jacket is red" In Maori you
> would be saying that "A jacket is in the state of redness" The
> underlying assumption that this redness came on it at some time, and
> it's changing in it's degree of redness over time, and who knows it
> may end a completely different state of being in the future in
> relation to being red. ...
Which is an interesting thing, given how often you resort to English
(pakeha) absolutes in your posts. (The above example of the west as
destructive to the land is a good one, though given an hour I'm sure I
could pull up twenty more.)
> ... Along with the fact that it has a lot of other
> states of being it's being at anyone moment.
> So being Pakeha is not a fixed thing - you can be Pakeha one moment on
> this thing, and not at another time.
>
> Pakeha has the sense of 'stranger' because the behaviours that came
> with the European were strange. And also because it's hard to make
> them family. "Pakeha" has come to colloquially mean "white New
> Zealander". But you can be a Maori Pakeha in that sense of word or a
> Pakeha Maori if you think of Maori in a 'race' sense.
Well, you are no stranger to Pakeha mentality, that's for sure.
(Off topic comment: the languages of the Native Americans had the exact
opposite property. To many NA languages, the concept of the flow of time
is foreign. Everything is *now*, even the past and the future are sort
of now; just a now that has happened or a now that will happen. Complex
teporal tenses and complex descriptions of time (such as describing
events that will have happened had something changed in the past, or
events that are yet to occur depending on some event) do not translate
easily.
Thus, when you say "a shirt is red", you are not only describing
something that is true now, but something which is implied to have
always been true and will always be true--even when it's no longer true,
such as when that shirt is later burned.
This, however, does not mean that the native mindset is a static one, or
that things are pigeonholed--as you have pigeonholed, at one time or
another, all of the west, all of Paganism, and all whites. Instead, such
categorizations of people or of things beyond what is absolutely
necessary for a functional description is simply not done, out of
respect.
Language has power, and often can have unexpected consequences, such as
when an angry parent constantly tells his child that she is stupid.)
> OT comment: If you get what I'm saying you can see why asking "Who am
> I?' is an irrelevant question. There's no 'labels' - although you're
> stuck with working with that if that's the dominant discourse.
<<snigger>>
For someone whose concept of labels is foreign, you seem very adapt at
using them en-mass, along with their cousins the irrational stereotype
and the categorical accusation.
> For any of the Maori words used - just to mess with your head, there
> is never going to be 'one' meaning because the words tend to be
> concept based- literally you can have an infinite number of meanings
> depending on the context of the conversation. ...
Oh, joy.
Which means that everything is subject to interpretation, and no
interpretation can ever be completely correct.
Which means I'm safe in my interpretation that, based on your
definitions above, your Pakeha mindset has infected your postings to
such a degree that I'm just smiling quietly to myself at the irony.
> > However, from an european cultural point of view, this "dualistic"
> > viewpoint is not universal by any stretch of the imagination. Sure,
> > Marxism and Hagelian philosophy presuppose a world of
> > "thesis/anthesis/synthesis", where opposites are mixed, either in
> > support of each other or in opposition, and unite to create a third
> > synthesis which is closer to the truth. But the diacritical philosophy
> > of Marx of seeing everyting as opposites has been rejected by nearly
> > everyone who isn't working as college professors in ivy-covered towers.
>
> No it's not universal, but on this board I can see it operating - this
> underlying assumption of opposites are in opposition to each other. ...
Well, of course you are going to see opposites here--it's actually
opposition to you arriving in this newsgroup as one blustery gale-forced
wind of negative stereotypes.
Though I'm sad you only see opposites here--it means that you have
selectively read my posts and found them to be at one extreme, rather
than at the middle. Not only is that Pakeha, as I understand the term
from the above, but it's also downright rude.
> It's a big part of Western/Pakeha culture. And it's present. eg Male
> superior to female; brother hood of man; oh yeah, you don't have any
> sisters huh?
You are clearly demonstrating the Pakeha mindset you so fiercely oppose.
>
> > > In fact, I submit that, by seeing the world as "Pakeha" and "Tipuna",
> > you are in fact seeing the world as the very opposites (with one,
> > "Tipuna", superior to the other) that you accuse the "Pakeha" of.
>
> Read the above. We do actually see 'twos' male - female, light - dark
> etc etc. But we don't hold that these things are in seperate to each
> other. That they are intrinsically in opposition or adversaries, that
> one of the pairs is 'good' the other 'bad' or less good, or weaker, or
> needs to be in 'submission to' etc. We see these dualities and as
> connected - tied to - intrinsic to each other existing. There is no
> inherent 'superior' or 'inferior' to male or female. Darkness eg is
> not 'evil'.
But it's painfully clear from your posts that Tipuna is superior to
Pakeha, and in opposition. (And your use of the word "enemy" in your
original post, quoted above, at "there is emerging a common 'enemy'",
infers not just darkness, but evil, and something that must be opposed.)
Whether you realize it or not, your comments are Pakeha to the core.
> Maori if you notice tend to tiki tour around to every religion going
> and don't really get hung up on it, historically and still pretty true
> today. From a historical perspective not one or the other ways
> considered more 'true'-(one way only) than the other - just; you get
> this coming out of going that way, and you get that if you explore
> this.
Maori religion shopping? Weird.
Well, I learn something new every day. And that's got to the the
weirdest statement I've read in a long time.
> .As a point of theological truth, mormonism intrinsically believes in
> Good and Evil<-that's debateable. ...
With all due respect, as a point of theology, the concepts of Absolute
Good and Abolute Evil are inherent to Mormonism. Mormonism believes in
God (though it's definition of God is not the traditional Roman Catholic
definition of a supreme being), and Mormonism believes in Evil, in the
form of a satanic figure who first accosted Job and later Jesus Christ.
That the Maori may have ignored this fundamental element of Mormon faith
is no different than the Native Americans who were converted to Roman
Catholicism and who still worship at Catholic churches, but who do not
believe in Absolute Good or Absolute Evil as a matter of personal faith.
> >so, by following LDS, you either buy into this "Pakeha" concept, or
> you
> > don't--at which point, you undoubtedly had to lie during some of the
> > initiatory rituals that the LDS puts it's membership through as they
> > reach certain points within their mormon career.
>
> I didn't have to lie about anything, you lurve to demonise don't you?
Well, you can't have things both ways, can you?
Unless you are either ignorant or a hypocrite (and in my experience,
most who write like you do fall into the first category), while you may
believe in both sides of dualism as a singularity, you cannot *act* both
sides without some inherent conflict.
Meaning you cannot progress in a confirmation ceremony without reciting
and stating your believe in a Creed which includes as a point of
theology the concepts of Good and Evil, unless you either didn't believe
in the Creed but just mouthed the words, or did not understand what the
Creed stood for.
Unless, of course, you never got that far in your LDS career.
> ... People's lives and actions, and how things
> work don't fit the box coz you think they do. ...
Look; I'm not happy when people want to stick folks into a box.
But on the other hand, you cannot tell a congregation that you believe
that through the Atonement of Christ, all of mankind will be saved
through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, unless you
either didn't appreciate what the Mormon Creed means, or lied about
believing in Atonement theology, salvation theology, and in obedience to
the Gospel--all principles which require a belief in the Absolute
Goodness of God, and which believes in some form of Fall, fueled in part
by the Lies of Evil Satan.
It's one thing to place people in a box due to their beliefs. But
actions, on the other hand, cannot be split down the middle,
"reinterpreted" or otherwise twisted around to make them not happen.
You cannot escape responsibility for your actions by "reinterpretation."
> > > This thinking has a tendency to automatically lend itself to an
> > > antagonistic or adversarial way of approaching the world and
> > > communicating. ...
> >
> > Like your posts and subsequent followups demonstrate, such as when you
> > wrote in another post:
>
> Do you know what 'enemy' means in Maori? It means 'angry friend'. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, goodie; redefinition of common English terms to wiggle yourself out
of the fact that you declared everyone here your enemy.
> ... When
> I choose to be angry and 'go to war' I do for a time being at least.
> But it's not a modus operandi. ....
Could have fooled me.
> > > > No, I am thinking the design of your culture would enable you to
> > > see a certain way. BUT I think underlying the western culture there
> > > are some extremely damaging ways of perceiving the world. Those
> > > things that are considered 'normal' like the mental illness,
> > > violence in the homes, etc etc come out of a certain design to that
> > > culture. ...
> >
> > 'Just them damned Pakeha Westerners, advocating violence in the home.
> > They're not as superior as us Tipuna, because unlike the Pakeha, we
> > *know* that mental illness and violence in the homes is not normal.'
>
> Interesting prejudices are coming to the fore. Mental illness and
> violence in the homes is NOT 'natural' a 'given' or 'normal'. ...
Of course not.
So why the hell are you accusing the west as believing mental illness
and violence in the home ARE "'natural' a 'given' or 'normal'"?
> > > The only difference here is that when you talk about the opposition of
> > male and female, good and evil, mind and body--we all know what you are
> > talking about. (We may not agree; for example, I see the separation
> > between matter and spirit--one which is also intrinsic to LDS
> > theology--as rubbish.)
>
> Well you definately don't understand LDS theology. ...
The eternality of the spirit of Man and the elevation of an individual's
spirit post-death to Godhood if they achieve enlightenment (and when
they shuck off this mortal coil) are not elements of Mormon belief?
Both of these elements of LDS faith require the separation of matter and
spirit, and the superiority of spirit over matter. I'm not saying that
the two cannot mix--obviously they do, in LDS theology, with the
inhabitation of the body by the spirit during life. (And in fact,
salvation theology in a Mormon context sort of requires the mixing of
the Spirit of Man with the Holy Spirit of God.)
But to suggest that matter and spirit are not separate is to suggest
that when the body dies, so does the spirit--and that's a direct
contradition to Mormon faith.
> > > ... Or the assumption that one thing must dominate the other the other
> > > must be in submission to it. Eg mind over matter, heaven above earth,
> > > spirit over matter, teacher over pupil, leader over subject, boss over
> > > employee,
> > > etc. ...
> >
> > Two things strike me as funny about this.
> >
> > First, all of these oppositions (except perhaps "boss over employee")
> > are intrinsic to Mormonism. You *cannot* be Mormon unless you believe to
> > one degree or another in all of these oppositions and the superiority of
> > the former over the latter.
>
> Mormonism as an expression of American/Utah culture yeah. I
> experienced that on my mission. As a theology - no.
Mormon Creed, point 6:
"We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive
Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists,
and so forth."
Point 12:
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Whether or not you understand or appreciate these points of the Mormon
Creed, or if you incorporated them into your own personal understanding
of Mormon faith--and who can blaim you, quite a few don't--they are
fundamental elements of Mormon theology.
They're in the damned Creed, for Christ's sake!
> [Rest snipped for brevity]
Trust me; you really need to take a long and hard look in the mirror.
Catherine Karena
"Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" wrote:
> Kat <kat...@ol.com.au> wrote:
> > Read the above. We do actually see 'twos' male - female, light - dark
> > etc etc. But we don't hold that these things are in seperate to each
> > other. That they are intrinsically in opposition or adversaries, that
> > one of the pairs is 'good' the other 'bad' or less good, or weaker, or
> > needs to be in 'submission to' etc. We see these dualities and as
> > connected - tied to - intrinsic to each other existing. There is no
> > inherent 'superior' or 'inferior' to male or female. Darkness eg is
> > not 'evil'.
>
> What I find most interesting about this is the apparent presumption that
> this is somehow necessarily different from the belief sets of some
> people on this newsgroup.
There isn't a presumption - because the mindsets aren't people. And we
weren't talking about beliefs. If you looked at our beliefs they have
commonality with a lot of different peoples in the world.
Yowie
> Further decisions have been made in regards to native title 'sea rights'
and
> native title rights over mining leases.
> A recent decision (which I know bugger all about having been much occupied
> with a new job lately) affects the native title rights over mining leases,
> ie. AFAIK mining leases may extinguish native title rights. I can NOT say
> this with any certainty though.
I don't know if mining leases *extinguish* native title rights or not.
However, I do know that native title rights do not automatically give the
holder(s) of the native title the mineral rights of that land. I believe
that this was a very recent decision.
Yowie
Daniel Cohen
> No it's not universal, but on this board I can see it operating - this
> underlying assumption of opposites are in opposition to each other.
> It's a big part of Western/Pakeha culture. And it's present. eg Male
> superior to female; brother hood of man; oh yeah, you don't have any
> sisters huh?
>
> > > In fact, I submit that, by seeing the world as "Pakeha" and "Tipuna",
> > you are in fact seeing the world as the very opposites (with one,
> > "Tipuna", superior to the other) that you accuse the "Pakeha" of.
>
> Read the above. We do actually see 'twos' male - female, light - dark
> etc etc. But we don't hold that these things are in seperate to each
> other. That they are intrinsically in opposition or adversaries, that
> one of the pairs is 'good' the other 'bad' or less good, or weaker, or
> needs to be in 'submission to' etc. We see these dualities and as
> connected - tied to - intrinsic to each other existing. There is no
> inherent 'superior' or 'inferior' to male or female. Darkness eg is
> not 'evil'.
>
A lot of pagans and Goddess people are seeing the value of
"non-duality". unfortunately, as has been pointed out (not in this
newsgroup) they claim non-dualistic thinking as superior and opposed to
dualistic thinking, which is itself a dualistic viewpoint.
It just shows how much dualistic thinking is part of our (meaning
'western', 'European', or the like) ways of thought.
--
Remove 'nospam, 'please' and 'invalid' for my correct e-mail address
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
<snip>
>There's a third and more common behavior of simple cultural
>misunderstanding; ignorance, from those not attempting to
>emulate or appropriate, but are still misinformed, through
>false educations, hearsay, and distorted media.
Note that *your* recent posts in this newsgroup make *you* guilty of
"cultural misunderstanding" against Pagans, by this definition. If you
can acknowledge the fact that you're doing this, perhaps more people
would be interested in hearing your side in return. You *do* have some
legitimate grievances. I just wish that you'd articulate them in a way
that doesn't falsely accuse the Pagan community as a whole.
This particular post of yours was quite a good summary, though.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>No, I am thinking the design of your culture would enable you to see a certain
>way. BUT I think underlying the western culture there are some extremely
>damaging ways of perceiving the world. Those things that are considered 'normal'
>like the mental illness, violence in the homes, etc etc come out of a certain
>design to that culture.
Neither mental illness nor violence are considered "normal" in Western
culture. Furthermore, the prevalence of both mental illness and
domestic violence is higher amongst Maori than it is amongst caucasian
New Zealanders. In fact, Merepeka Tate, the head of Women's Refuge
(who is herself Maori), has identified that abuse in Maori society
today is a major problem. She condemns the fact that sexual abuse by
elders is covered up in some Maori tribes, even today.
<snip>
>Western culture most definately needs to change it's just a survival issue.
*All* cultures need to change. That's inevitable.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>This is going to be a long one, so bear with me. I'm also
>going to make myself unpopular.
Nah, not at all.
>That having been said, I'll dive right in.
Often the best idea. *g*
>You are never going to be able, IMHO (in my humble opinion) to get any one
>person (exceptions will be noted in a moment) to see 'the entire elephant'.
It depends on exactly what it is that we're talking about. All
knowledge has a confidence level of less than 100%, and it depends on
the degree to which evidence can be validated and replicated.
<snip>
>Let me give you a behavioural example. I took my son to the park one day.
>My son is autistic, and one of his problems is transitioning from one
>activity to another. Because of that, he screams, fights, and runs away
>when it's time to leave. This particular day he engaged in all of these
>reactions, to the point that I had to pick him up and carry him to my van,
>kicking, screaming and fighting. A police officer walked by just then. Not
>knowing me, the situation, or my son's disability, how do you think he
>responded? He has to interpret what he is seeing, based on his experience
>and training, to decide if this is a case of a child being kidnapped or a
>case of a relative/caretaker trying to remove an out-of-control child. How
>he responds (whether leaving the situation alone, asking the woman if she
>needs help, or arresting her) depends on his interpretation of the
>situation - his 'mindset'.
Indeed. It must be difficult having a son who is autistic.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>I odn't have much time - I'll give you an example of a "pakeha" mindset - that I
>think is 'blinding':
>
>The following is a post to Maori - to kick off a discussion on that forum
>about what "pakeha" is. I hope it gets up everybody's nose :)
So that's your goal in posting here, is it? To get up our noses? To
make the people who you think are persecuting you pay by making us
hear what you think we'll see as uncomfortable truths? Do you not
think there are more constructive goals that you could conceivably aim
for, like having your legitimate grievances heard? Or do you simply
not trust us enough to be this ambitious?
>It's one of the mindsets I run into with Pagans and Maoritanga.
>
>Rangikai' was telling me at one time that the old Mâori likened the
>Pakeha to the Tui bird one reason being that that bird looks at you
>with 'one eye'… and it got me to thinking about the differences
>between "Pakeha world view" and "Mâori world view".
There is no monolithic "Pakeha world view" or "Maori world view".
<snip>
>I was thinking "darwinism", "racism" and "eugenics" are other
>classic examples of 'one eyeism".
Note that Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do
with either racism or eugenics. Ever heard of the naturalistic
fallacy?
Blessed be,
Matthew
Gale
<snip>
>
> A lot of pagans and Goddess people are seeing the value of
> "non-duality". unfortunately, as has been pointed out (not in this
> newsgroup) they claim non-dualistic thinking as superior and opposed to
> dualistic thinking, which is itself a dualistic viewpoint.
Hard-wiring. ;-) My off-hand conjecture (and just that; it ain't my
field) is the logical process began when a human first *consciously*
divided the world into "A" and "not A." We've been expanding the
process, for better or worse, ever since.
>
> It just shows how much dualistic thinking is part of our (meaning
> 'western', 'European', or the like) ways of thought.
And while I agree that said process is most visible (by far) in
"Western" thought, I suspect it both reflects hard-wiring and is a
requisite element (though not necessarily *the* focus) of most systems
of thought.
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated: http://arwm.net
William Woody
> >I was thinking "darwinism", "racism" and "eugenics" are other
> >classic examples of 'one eyeism".
>
> Note that Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do
> with either racism or eugenics. Ever heard of the naturalistic
> fallacy?
Uh, beg to differ--eugenics clearly derives from a mis-treatment of
Drawin's theory of evolution, and a misapplication of same towards the
cultural and spiritual evolution of humanity.
But then, Darwin's theory of evolution has been misapplied to a number
of seneraios and have been used to justify every sort of madness from
the late 19th and early 20th century from genocide to Lassie-Faire
Capitalism to starvation in the streets and cultural destruction.
What boggles my mind is why Kat keeps coughing up "Eugenics", when it is
clear from context that she has no idea what that word really means, and
when she clearly does not understand that it's as offensive to the
modern western mindset as is genocide.
janet
William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes
>>
>> Note that Darwin's theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do
>> with either racism or eugenics. Ever heard of the naturalistic
>> fallacy?
>
>Uh, beg to differ--eugenics clearly derives from a mis-treatment of
>Drawin's theory of evolution, and a misapplication of same towards the
>cultural and spiritual evolution of humanity.
Yes, but that is an *application* of Darwin, from Galton and co.
There are clearly statements in Darwin which, if made *now* would be
racist. We can not, however, apply that label to him, I think (though
I've been called racist myself for this view). To do so is to apply a
label which we have defined with knowledge we have now and a mind set we
have now, back in time to someone working under different conditions.
(I know no one called Darwin racist, but I thought I would throw that
in, anyway).
--
janet
mwcnbf
Gale
You can raise a huge question in terms of the more enlightened 19h.
Century Englishman (Darwin; Joseph Conrad, whose _Heart of Darkness_ was
conceived in his horrified reaction to Leopold II of Belgium's ghastly
conquest of the Congo; etc.). These were folks who believed in the
innate *cultural* superiority of England over the rest of the world, and
of those white nations who followed the English example over the
"native" world -- however, the notion was cultural, not precisely
"racial" and the link to "race" was far less strong than the link to
notions of "civilization."
However, the undercurrent of Anglo-European superiority which I find
myself highly inclined to excuse in Conrad appears as explicit
exhortations in Kipling, such as I can't find it in myself to excuse,
and underlies the framework of those misuses of Darwin's theory which
have been noted in this thread.
In the context of his professional theories, I believe it would be
highly inappropriate to term Darwin racist. In terms of his personal
worldview, well, that's irrelevant in terms of scientific evaluation,
but he doubtless shared the viewpoint of the typical best-intentioned
Englishman ("racist" by our standards; enlightened by the standards of
his time).
William Woody
> You can raise a huge question in terms of the more enlightened 19h.
> Century Englishman (Darwin; Joseph Conrad, whose _Heart of Darkness_ was
> conceived in his horrified reaction to Leopold II of Belgium's ghastly
> conquest of the Congo; etc.). These were folks who believed in the
> innate *cultural* superiority of England over the rest of the world, and
> of those white nations who followed the English example over the
> "native" world -- however, the notion was cultural, not precisely
> "racial" and the link to "race" was far less strong than the link to
> notions of "civilization."
It's interesting that the notion of the cultural superiority of England
is so antithetical to the multicultural philosophy developed in the
United States that when an author such as Victor Hanson comes along and
writes about why Western culture expanded (because the basis of western
culture creates more efficient killers), his theories are almost
automatically dismissed without hearing.
Fortunately, after 9/11, the thinking I've seen seems to be swinging in
the other direction--towards questioning the underlying assumption of
multiculturalism that all cultures are innately equal in every respect.
Hopefully, this time the pendulum will swing towards understanding that
western civilization became great because of the focus on the value of
the individual and individual responsibilities and privileges, rather
than on some wierd notion that somehow taking tea at 4 makes a culture
more powerful.
baird
<snip>
> However, the undercurrent of Anglo-European superiority which I find
> myself highly inclined to excuse in Conrad appears as explicit
> exhortations in Kipling, such as I can't find it in myself to excuse,
> and underlies the framework of those misuses of Darwin's theory which
> have been noted in this thread.
Er, um...might I suggest a re-read of KIM? I, personally, find that
Kipling's "exhortations" are, er, highly Swiftian in nature - though I
will admit that I found that subtext only on a re-read of my own, as an
adult of several years' standing. When I read the novel as a youngster,
I didn't quite draw the connection, seeing as how the all the competent
adults are "natives" whilst the Colonial authorities seem more to be
portrayed as bumblers who are none the less convinced of the
applicability of "England uber alles."
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Newstaff, Inc. at newstaff.com - a network security company
Gale
It's been a few (quite a few) years since _Kim_ -- maybe too many. I was
thinking instead of the expressions of jingoism found in some of his
more wretched poetry, such as "White Man's Burden." (Am I remembering
correctly a vague impression that Kipling wrote that piece as a
celebration / invocation to duty directed at the United States following
the U.S. acquisition of the Phillipines, etc. in the Spanish-American
War? I'll have to check out date & circumstances on that.)
(And regardless -- _Kim_ is an excellent book; such can also be stated
regarding much of Kipling's fiction, with the notable exception of _The
Light that Failed_, which struck me as just that.)
baird
<snip>
> It's been a few (quite a few) years since _Kim_ -- maybe too many. I was
> thinking instead of the expressions of jingoism found in some of his
> more wretched poetry, such as "White Man's Burden." (Am I remembering
> correctly a vague impression that Kipling wrote that piece as a
> celebration / invocation to duty directed at the United States following
> the U.S. acquisition of the Phillipines, etc. in the Spanish-American
> War? I'll have to check out date & circumstances on that.)
IIRC, "The White Man's Burden" may also be read for satiric intent.
When I last read it, I gained the distinct impression that he meant the
exact opposite of what he said....
Wood Avens
On 15 Aug 2002 20:25:01 GMT, ba...@newstaff.com (baird) wrote:
>Gale <gal...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> However, the undercurrent of Anglo-European superiority which I find
>> myself highly inclined to excuse in Conrad appears as explicit
>> exhortations in Kipling, such as I can't find it in myself to excuse,
>> and underlies the framework of those misuses of Darwin's theory which
>> have been noted in this thread.
>
>Er, um...might I suggest a re-read of KIM? I, personally, find that
>Kipling's "exhortations" are, er, highly Swiftian in nature
I'm glad you said that, Baird - I was thinking of posting a very
similar response.
Kim in particular, but also some of the short stories - 'The Way That
He Took' and 'The Son Of His Father' , to pick just two (from 'Land &
Sea Tales for Scouts and Guides' - from which I regularly re-read the
incomparably delightful 'His Gift', entirely irrelevant to this thread
.... ). And the tales and verses in which the heroes are not the
English gentlemen, manifesting public-school honour and cultural
imperialism, but underlings and workers, of all races, who succeed
through guile and low cunning quite contrary to the Empire's public
face and noble rhetoric.
I'm not making Kipling out to be anything other than a child of his
time with some typical cultural assumptions, but he takes a very wry
look at many of them - and perhaps it's to his disadvantage that he
frequently does it so subtly that it can easily get lost, at first
reading, in the pace of a cracking good story. (After all, he was at
heart a journalist.)
(And I do sometimes wonder what he'd have made of his current status,
in some quarters, as neo-Pagan poet and apologist.)
bb
Wood Avens
spamtrap: remove number to reply
..
Gale
<snip>
>
> IIRC, "The White Man's Burden" may also be read for satiric intent.
> When I last read it, I gained the distinct impression that he meant
> the exact opposite of what he said....
I won't claim to offer a definitive "no" to that, but I'll note that
many of Kipling's contemporaries took it on face value, and responded to
it as such. From _The San Francisco Call_, Feb. 7, 1899:
> Rudyard Kipling has joined the ranks of those eminent British jingoes
> who are trying to induce the United States to help Great Britain in
> her imperial schemes by taking part in the Oriental imbroglio.
> Chamberlain and Balfour have enticed us with lofty oratory. Kipling
> wooes us with a song published in The Call ...
From a Senate speech on the same date by Benjamin R. Tillman:
> This poem, unique, and in some places too deep for me, is a prophecy.
> I do not imagine that in the history of human events any poet has
> ever felt inspired so clearly to portray our danger and our duty. It
> is called "The White Man's Burden."
And a long, angry assessment offered by Alfred Webb of Dublin, Ireland
in a letter to the U.S's _The Nation_ (also dated Feb. 7, 1899; the
creator of the website I'm mining for this info appeared to have as
casual an approach to scholarship as I'm exhibiting here):
> Sir: The cable informs us that "Kipling's stirring verses, the 'Call
> to America,' have created a profound impression" on your side. What
> that impression may be, we can only conjecture. They profoundly
> impress many of us here as first-class specimens of cant, to which
> one of the examples, drawn from Dryden, given by Johnson as an
> example of the proper use of the word cant, aptly applies: "Of
> promise prodigal, while pow'r you want, And preaching in the
> self-denying cant."
>
> There is something almost sickening in this "imperial" talk of
> assuming and bearing burdens for the good of others. They are never
> assumed or held where they are not found to be of material advantage
> or ministering to honor or glory. Wherever empire (I speak of the
> United Kingdom) is extended, and the climate suits the white man, the
> aborigines are, for the benefit of the white man, cleared off or held
> in degradation for his benefit. Where the climate does not suit us,
> and the natives are in too advanced a condition to be cleared off,
> the first consideration (at least with the majority, men of Kipling's
> turn of mind) is our material advantage and honor and glory. We are
> in a precious hurry to lay burdens down when they do not pay, as in
> the case of our solemn obligations to the Armenians. We are ever
> ready to shirk them, as in the case of the status of our Indian
> fellow-subjects in our colonies, when the bearing of the burden of
> seeing fair play done would be inconvenient. In so far as is
> compatible with our interests and honor and glory, we have perhaps
> made the interests of "natives" under our rule of higher and more
> enduring consideration than that recorded of any other conquering and
> governing Power. But this talk of burdens is, as I have said,
> unadulterated cant.
I'll note that the angry voices (of which I've provided only a small
sample) may not have read any more accurately than the admiring ones
(Tillman, above), but I've not come across any vehement clarification by
Kipling, such as I would have expected if he were being severely mis-read.
Wood Avens
On 16 Aug 2002 17:25:04 GMT, Gale <gal...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> There is something almost sickening in this "imperial" talk of
> > assuming and bearing burdens for the good of others. They are never
> > assumed or held where they are not found to be of material advantage
> > or ministering to honor or glory.
[snip rest of quotation from Alfred Webb, 1899]
It can't have escaped your attention that this reads exactly like a
comment on G W Bush's current Middle-Eastern rhetoric, written by any
of the serious commentators in most of the rest of the world.
William Woody
Um, I don't know what commentators you have been reading, but the ones
I've been reading haven't been making this particular set of
accusations. Instead, their accusations have been more along the lines
of the United States being a bumbling fool on the world stage than it
acting along strictly imperialistic lines.
That's only because the other countries of Europe are also trying to
expand their influence in the Middle East, and they perceive the United
State's saber rattling as being more akin to the ramblings of a drunken
fool who disrupts a thoughtful and meaningful dialog between peoples. So
for countries like France or Germany to accuse the United States of
imperial designs is the kettle calling the pot black.
Of course this discounts otherwise well-meaning non-profit NGOs and
protestors who have shown themselves relatively easy to manipulate--as
witnessed by the constant protests of Palestinian treatment by Israel,
but who had nairy a peep when Kuwait expatriated and/or purged some
380,000 Palestinians right after the Gulf War from within it's own
borders.
Gale
I'm not answering because I have no way of determining if G.W. is
behaving as a full-scale nitwit or is acting in response to secret
information which would indeed scare the daylights out of us or even
both of the above.
A few years ago, I could not understand why Bill Clinton lobbed a few
missles into a Middle Eastern desert. In retrospect, I deeply wish he
had nailed the ****. So now, I have no idea if G.W. is playing silly
power games or is making the best response he can manage to a threat to,
not U.S. "interests," but U.S. lives and domestic safety. I'm afraid to
assume the former, for all that G.W.'s "loose cannon" mouth serves to
reduce his diplomatic credibility.
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>Fortunately, after 9/11, the thinking I've seen seems to be swinging in
>the other direction--towards questioning the underlying assumption of
>multiculturalism that all cultures are innately equal in every respect.
>Hopefully, this time the pendulum will swing towards understanding that
>western civilization became great because of the focus on the value of
>the individual and individual responsibilities and privileges, rather
>than on some wierd notion that somehow taking tea at 4 makes a
>culture more powerful.
Yeah, I agree. Western cultures have been overcompensating for our
colonial past by embracing cultural relativism. Now the pendulum needs
to swing back in the other direction somewhat. Innocuous cultural
differences should certainly be respected and tolerated, but blatantly
oppressive and barbaric practices in other cultures should be
acknowledged as such. What the cultural relativists forget is that
universally tolerating other cultures doesn't provide any guarantee
that all other cultures will universally tolerate everyone else in
return. This latest display of religious fanaticism about
exterminating all the "infidels" makes this abundantly clear.
Undemocratic and oppressive governments and social structures provide
the breeding grounds for terrorist camps to be developed without the
people of the country concerned having a chance to put a stop to it.
If we're not able to acknowledge the wrongs in other cultures and to
do something about them, then in time there will be more planes flown
into our buildings. It's that simple, really.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Daven
the option and reset it so I can do this, but I need to see. Please ignore this
message.
Daven
Daven
Stars light your path.
Daven
High Priest, Druid
House of the Morning Star
"Never attribute to Devil-worshiping conspiracies what opportunism,
emotional instability, and religious bigotry are sufficient to explain."
Shawn Carlson, Ph. D.
Visit my Journal! http://davensjournal.com
baird
Okay, okay! I'm ignoring it....
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin, soc.religion.paganism
Modstaff, alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Ember
what from who and what was stolen (I am not arguing either way.) Maybe for
now we can just discuss and celebrate our differences? Borrow from
eachother? the Maori culture like many others sounds utterly fascinating to
me.
Blessings
Ember