From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 16:46:35 GMT
Hi All,
So much ground to cover, I'm almost regretting taking the harley out for
the weekend... almost ;-)
Anyway, I'm going to combine several replies, to avoid hitting the list
with a dozen emails this morning.
First, those Indians...
[Sam asked]
How does that last sentence relate to Pirsig's assertion (following Sidis)
that the Indian character was what shaped the Rousseauan 'noble savage'
idea? Was it a different tribe or what?
[Arlo says]
Certainly each tribe (and each individual) had their own characteristics.
From what I know of Rousseau, his "noble savage" idea has its origins in
real world characteristics (Pirsig describes these, I won't bother to
reiterate), but developed into a naive myth, likely a psychological
countermove to the restrictiveness of Rousseau's society. In this case, the
two societies are presented as polar opposites, to criticize one and
heroify the other (not unlike the current political discourse in America).
[Jon wrote]
Let's get a fresh perspective. Slaughter of Indians after 1800 is just so
"over done" you know? I mean, it's like people think Indians lived in a
virtual Utopia before the Spaniards arrived. This holier-than-thou sleight
of hand is getting quite OUT of hand.
To characterize (as some many historians do) killer Indians as somehow
"less evil" than killer Europeans, is on par with the vilification of the
Sophists which so horrified Pirsig in the concluding chapters of ZMM.
[Arlo says]
Its frustating to have to restate basic statements. No one, NO ONE, is
suggesting that history should go from the "myth of the noble white man" to
the "myth of the noble savage". The argument is for the elimination of
"myth" altogether. BOTH SIDES are guilty of using nationalistic or
ideological sensibilities to revise history. If you can find one, just ONE,
mention of ANYONE promoting the teaching of a utopic Indian society, I'll
criticize them as loudly as I criticize the "white-washed" history that is
taught in the schools today.
[Mel wrote]
That's exactly the kind of thing that is the problem, pulling sphincter
estimates rather than tracing the actual numbers; pretending to be able to
say how and why everyone died and ignoring new information that does not
fit in with a precious theory.
[Arlo says]
This has to work both ways, Mel. When that "new information" contradicts
the "noble white man" theory, it is just as valid.
If I understand correctly, you have a realpolitik perspective on history.
Briefly, cultural conflict happens and the weaker culture naturally is
assimilated by the stronger, if this is not mandated, it is certainly
natural and moral. From this derives the historical view, if we assimilated
them, then we have a stronger, better culture. Am I correct with this?
I ask this because there are plenty of primary sources that reveal the
military was involved with distributing pox blankets, that Indians who
tried to assimilate were systematically robbed of their land so that white
land owners could have it (court records indicate a clear trend to deny
representation and protection of the law to Indian land owners in the
Northeast), that Indians were forced to deathmarch from their lands in the
east to the territories. In Haiti the situation was more immediately
devastating for the natives. Are you suggesting, that these primary sources
be withheld and not made a part of the teaching of history because they are
the natural processes by which one culture dominates another?
None of these things, by the way, suggests that Indians were utopic, or
that all white men are evil. Merely that in this particular cultural clash,
these things happened and led to the outcome we see today. What is wrong
with teaching that?
[Platt wrote]
Thanks for putting Injun history in broader perspective. The game among
academics today is to identify a group of victims and then blame the white
man for their troubles, making certain to maintain political correctness
along the way by bowing relentlessly before the god of "sensitivity." You
rightly pegged it a "comfortable stuckness" and then summed it up well:
[Arlo says]
How is the teaching the myth that noble white men arrived on a continent
inhabited by murderous savages any better? Aren't you advocating the
teaching of a "nationalistically correct" revision of history? No
"academic" I know advances this absurd notion that we should "blame the
white man". What all the academics I know desire is for history to be
stripped of its "feel good" nationalism.
Indeed, it is this "feel good" nationalism that is at the root of the
current discourse problems in American politics. It is the ingrained need
to view history as a "we're always right" and "they're always wrong"
mentality. It is what has undermined criticism in this country to make it
"traitorous". It is why no one seems to care about our despicable actions
in the Middle East leading up to the current situation, only their
despicable actions. Even my saying this in the current setting will likely
lead you to believe I place ALL blame on "the white man". I don't, but you
and the "feel good" nationalism crowd seem unable to distinguish critical
historical argumentation from advancing one side over the other. This whole
Indian debate proves that. Like Mark said, its not about the accuracy of
numbers, its about the accuracy of the primary sources that reveal the
events as they unfolded. But here the whole thing has treaded water on the
myth that by proposing this, we are somehow favoring (1) a utopic native
myth, or (2) a hatred of white men.
So let me restate. Yes, we should teach the reality that Indians were not
utopic noble savages, that they made war with each other, dashed their
rivals heads on rocks, claimed the women of conquered tribes, etc. But we
should also teach that we used the military to distribute pox infected
blankets, that we used the military to enforce long deathmarches to move
the native populations out of land desired by whites, that Indians who did
try to assimilate were denied protection and representation.
The clashing of cultures, as Mel suggested, is a historical given. It is
happening at present (hegemony and war). But being able to critically
assess these clashes, to be critical of both sides and not demand a
nationalistically or ideologically revised account of this clash is what
everyone I know in academia favors.
Then perhaps we could bring into the current middle east dialogue
criticisms of both sides, a historical perspective of our involvement
militarily and politically, as well as a perspective on american hegemonic
influences and culturally-based resistance (via understanding previous
cultural conflicts). Then perhaps the argument would not be advanced as the
idiotically nationalistic propaganda "they hate freedom".
With Indians or Iraqis, you response seems to favor a view of white
american interests as being wholly moral, above reproach and noble and just
in its actions. The "other" is always seen as inferior, violent, brutish
and less culturally advanced. You also seem to favor the notion that
America is morally justified in its hegemony as it is superior and
favorable to all other cultures and societies. Am I wrong to infer this?
[Platt also wrote]
I agree. The problem is and will always be: on what basis will we teach the
kiddies good from bad, right from wrong, true from false? In other words,
how do we insert morality into the curriculum in a way that won't raise
irreconcilable differences? Would the MOQ be acceptable as the lens through
which all subjects are to be viewed?
Of course. I wouldn't be here if I thought otherwise. But, as I think Ian
repsonded, we should avoid the teaching of the MOQ as dogma, or as if all
other metaphysical approaches are "wrong".
[David Morey wrote]
Interesting post. How can hope to overcome the mountains of awful SOM and
system-propping-up nonsense for the many?
[Arlo responds]
Won't be easy, that's for sure. Like I said, I belive critical thinking and
cross-cultural competence to be two keys in this regard. And to this I will
add, as Mark suggests, a healthy dose of the Arts. Also as I've suggested a
integration of subjects, or at the least a critical assessment of their
boundedness. Also, as you've mentioned you've done yourself, we need to
foster ongoing learning opportunities so people have the opportunity to be
exposed to longterm discourse in any one or multiple fields. A good
starting point for all this (I believe) is a critical examination of how
language and culture engender particular cognition, metaphysics and
worldviews.
[Platt asked]
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of
peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that
national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Washington answers the question, "What is the proper source of morality for
a nation?"
I wonder what your answer might be.
[To which Chuck responded]
By the end of his life, George Washington owned over 300 slaves. He also
cultivated marijuana. So, what?
He was a man, like the rest of us.
[Arlo says]
Careful, Chuck. You are on the verge of challenge "feel good" heroification
of "the founders". Certainly we can dismiss these "lies" about Washington
as part of the "liberal agenda" to make white men feel guilty. ;-)
Actually, like the Indian issue, this is a valid historical argument that
is unaddressd in the current teaching of U.S. history. And it presents
itself as a great opportunity to engage students in critical thinking
exercises. Why do we heroify "the founders"? What does it mean that
Jefferson and Washington owned slaves, and yet are credited with creating a
democratic society where "all men are created equal"? A very good critical
lesson for "the kiddies" (as Platt would say).
On to Evolution...
[Ian wrote]
In fact when I say "evolution" all I mean is ... Evolution by any "natural
(real, believable, true) processes".
(physical, biological, sociological and intellectual, whatever processes)
Something changes in one generation (for whatever reason), and is Preserved
or re-inforced in a subsequent generation (by whatever mechanism).
[Arlo says]
Here I have a question. Would it be correct to say, from what you are
saying, evolution "happens" as a result of Quality. That is, mutations,
selection, etc. all occur in framework of inorganic, biological and social
responses to Quality (leaving Intellectual aside, as we are generalizing to
all species). Thus, an adaptation occurs when on one (or more) of these
levels something (an atom, a protein molecule, a bird..) responds to Quality.
In this case, evolution is not a random, unguided process, it is response
to Quality. But, it is also not guided by a otherwise separate entity who
creates things based on this entity's will. So, I ask, isn't a view of
evolution being determined by a separate creating entity a SOM view? To
restate, it seems to me that ID is contradictory to the MOQ, in that it
proposes an external creating agent (the intelligence behind the design)
rather than inorganic, biological and social "things" responding to
Quality. The MOQ does not see the platypus as created by an external
intelligence, but by an evolutionary process of inorganic, biological and
social processes responding to Quality.
Would it be incorrect from a MOQ perspective to say "the platypus created
itself because it valued doing so"?
Just some thoughts.
Finally, a parting comment about the election...
[Platt wrote]
anymore than similar elitist chest-pounding was lost on millions who voted
to re-elect Bush.
[Arlo asks]
Seems to me the "elitist chest-pounding" is being done by the millions who
voted to re-elect Bush. In any case, if all you've accomplished is to
replace one elitism with another, this is hardly anything to gloat about.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 16 2004 - 21:38:42 GMT