From: mel (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 17:29:30 GMT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arlo Bensinger
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:47 AM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: RE: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
Hi All,
<snip>
[Mel wrote]
That's exactly the kind of thing that is the problem, <snip> 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.
mel:
Exactly! Any valid historical
perspective uses all available data.
[Arlo says]
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?
mel:
NO! I have a view of history that is morphological.
There is as definite a shape to history as to the
rock formations of the Grand Canyon and the people
who are dead exist in a "perfective" state. They
committed their lived to their now immutable choices.
Here is the important part...We can't know, but a
tiny portion of their thinking, within their fears
and hopes, conditioned by their social assumptions.
Much of their writing is edited after the fact and
not simple record.
At best we usually ASSUME and rarely label our
conclusions as ASSUMPTIVE...which is dishonest.
We should study history to learn from it for our own
moral choices, but the exercise in projecting morality
backward is only mental calisthenics for us, at best,
and if we only grab partial knowledge, it is in fact
destructive at worst. (promotes grudges, trapping us
or future people in low SQ)
The SHAPE of what has passed is no more moral or
immoral than the shape of the Grand Canyon, we look
at it from its congealed state. The act of creating
history IS moral, but soon all dynamics are made
static...
The "outcome" of history is like the
outcome of evolution, we can see it, but
there is no judgment on the Value of a
dead ended species or culture other than
it ended in that particular conjunction of
processes. Were things different...?
A stronger culture is simply stronger.
We should learn from all cultures and
in the opportunistic theft of primates
everywhere we should test what works
and find new application...
[Arlo says]
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?
mel:
Show it all, but label it clearly.
The actions of individuals are often
wrongly attributed as moral imperative
on others and on groups.
[Arlo says]
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?
mel:
Historical criticism is often much like
the nightly news, it has one lesson:
People everywhere are too often mean,
nasty, stupid, lazy, little shits.
What we need to teach is how people can
become moral, noble, generous, creative,
and poised to evolve toward a Dynamic
state in how they live their lives.
Children raised this way look at a
different life in a different world,
but they are 'hurt' more easily.
[Platt wrote]
Thanks for putting Injun history in broader perspective <snip>
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.
mel:
Blame the white man IS an extant
prejudice, though like all such
notions NOT universal.
We are all sensitive to prejudice
of which we are object, so read that
emotion, filtered properly...
<snip>
[Arlo says]
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.
mel:
although...most of the Indians who successfully
assimilated you can't identify...
[Arlo says]
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".
mel:
The motivators of actions are as partisan in their
politics as in any group. They will gladly grind
bodies under the mill stone of their agendas if
they think they can win. History is only after
the fact, politics is the creation of history,
force is the realization of politics in the face
of resistance or non-consensus.
[Arlo says]
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?
mel:
On a third level struggle, each social system,
genuinely executed IS 'right' by its own definition,
so that makes culture clash problematic in
the morality of the process.
TO me, the only genuinely clear cut morality,
or the most significant, is the action of the
individual.
Like a color wheel when spun yields an average
color that does not truly exist on any square,
the attribution of morality to a group often
suffers the same inequity of assignment.
<snip>
thanks--mel
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 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 17:48:27 GMT