From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 17 2004 - 18:39:54 GMT
Platt,
None of these assumptions (surprise, surprise) are correct.
> Assumption 1: Primary sources are accurate.
Your desire to paint everything as absolutes nonwithstanding, primary
sources, such as court documents revealing cases (dating from as far back
as the 1600s) in which Indians pettition the court over land disputes
(agricultural) with whites, does indeed indicate aspects of history that we
have mythed over in the name of feel-good nationalism. Primary sources need
to be evaluated critically, to make statements indicating a rejection (or
acceptance) of all primary sources is pretty ridiculous, Platt.
What primary sources generally provide as an "unmythified" look into
events. These should certainly be taken seriously and used whenever
possible. After all, it was following primary sources that led to the
knowledge that Jefferson was a slave owner and kept a black mistress to
whom he fathered children. Not something that we'd know about if we left
the textbook authors determine what our history is.
> Assumption 2. Indians were land owners.
Absolutism again. No, but many were, especially in the Northeast (for one
example, the Ohio Indians). But here, see, you'll win because a "land
owner" implies one individual's societal papers showing ownership of a
segment block of land. First, our courts never recognized Indian claims to
"own land", professing the land "unowned" until a white court doled it out
to someone (always a non-native). Second, the Indian concept of "ownership"
differed from the white, in many cases land was "owned" by the tribe and
not divided up among
individual members of the tribe. So, if by "land owner" you mean a person
recognized by white courts as having ownership of a piece of land, then
you're probably right. But even so, court records show several cases (in
the 1600s) of Indians who had been "recognized" as "owning land" adjacent
to white settlers, who pettioned the court to stop encroachment on said
land, to whom the court turned a blind eye and did nothing to protect said
"ownership".
> Assumption 3. Nationalism (patriotism) is evil.
Absolutism yet again! What a surprise! No, patriotism is not evil. The
redefining of "patriotism" into blind acceptance of one's government and a
belief that the government can do no wrong and is wholly moral (as is
happening now, and as happened during the Third Reich) is evil.
The defining of protestors to the current war as "unpatriotic" is evil.
Patriotism is best expressed (as Mark did in a recent post) as a love of
one's country and the ability to critically work to improve it, to see
where it has gone wrong and to be proud of where it has gone right.
The revision of history to censor wrong-doings to protect "feel-good"
nationalism is evil. One can be proud of one's nation (or culture) without
censoring history from its citizens. The events we're discussing (and one's
Mark pointed out as well) do not make me feel "unpatriotic", indeed, it is
patriotism that points them out. It is patriotism that demands we admit to
our mistakes in order to ensure they will not happen again.
Blind obedience may be good in dogs, but not men.
> Assumption 4. The U.S. is responsible for Islamic terrorism.
Oh come on. Yep, you're right, that's what I said, it's ALL OUR FAULT.
You see the trouble I've described earlier with uncritical, feel-good
nationalism. The minute I express that the current situation was engendered
by OUR governments' despicable actions in the Middle East AND of the
despicable actions of militants and (in the case of the Saudis) royal
families in the area, you jump right back into "you're blaming the U.S.".
Can you see it in any other way other than (1) it's ALL our fault, or (2)
it's ALL their fault?
Really?
> Assumption 5. Today's children are responsible for the actions of their
> fathers and forefathers.
No, Platt. But today's children are responsible for ensuring that these
actions not occur again. Are German children responsible for the holocaust?
Of course not. But should they be taught what happened, how it happened, so
that it can't happen again. Or should we not teach Germans the history of
the Third Reich so that they can be "proud" of being German without any
pesky history from getting in the way.
> Assumption 6. "Critical thinking" is good -- defined as finding faults and
emphasizing the negatives, especially in regards to the U.S.
??? Critical thinking often uncovers positive aspects overlooked or
censored, Platt. It's just that in this thread it's been about applying
critical thinking against "feel-good" revisions of history.
Critical thinking simply suggests an analysis and questioning of motives
and assumptions about a particular thing or event. For example, it allows
me to ask the question, if a constitutional amendment to "protect the
sanctity of marriage" is created to prevent homosexuals from marrying, then
why do we not include in said amendment an outlawing of "divorce", or to
mandate a time-length for a relationship, and an evaluation of the couple's
seriousness, before allowing a marriage to proceed? How does "preventing
gays from marrying" preserve sanctity, but allowing unrestricted
heterosexual marriages to begin and end so wantonly not warrant a
constitutional amendment?
> Assumption 7: No culture is superior to another.
While aspects of social-static patterns can indeed be compared, and value
judgements made (such as America has a superior media (freedom of the
press) than China), absolute statements such as "America is superior to
China" is nothing but nationalistic nonsense.
> Assumption 8. No metaphysics is superior to another.
Nonsense. I obviously feel the MOQ is a superior metaphysics. I am against
the teaching of metaphysics as dogma, as it turns philosophy into
philosophology. Exposure to, and critical awareness of, various systems of
metaphysics is paramount to understanding not just what a metaphysics
"says", but how it manifests itself in the culture (e.g., Pirsig's
criticisms of SOM and how it has engendered a certain type of alienating
labor activity).
> Assumption 9. Multiculturalism (respect all cultures no matter how
> backward or barbaric) is a cure-all for the world's problems.
Multiculturalism is essential to see the similarities among cultural
responses to social organizations and mythologies. It is essential to see
the reciprocal dynamic between language and culture. And yes, respect for
one another is a good cure for many of the world's problems. If we had
respect for the lives of the Iranians and Iraqis, maybe we would not have
sold them guns to kill each other for our own economic interests. If the
differing cultures and religious sects there had more respect for each
other, maybe they wouldn't spend their time trying to kill off each other.
Maybe then the world would be somewhat different today.
As it is, your response of "uniculturalism" simply states ours is the
superior way, and everyone else is (if not simply inferior) backwards or
barbaric, and not worth our time, understanding or respect.
Interesting note, the word "barbarian" stems from the Greek way of mocking
the non-Greeks (mostly Persians, Goths and other Northern European and
Steppes peoples) whose language sounded to them like "bar bar bar". It
boiled down to "those who do not speak our language".
> Assumption 10: A person has a duty to do as he says. Otherwise, what he
> says should be ridiculed and ignored.
Anyone can say anything, Platt. Actions speak much louder than words. But
the point is not that he should be ridiculed and ignored, but he also
should not be allowed to become heroified. I admire Lincoln greatly, but he
too struggled with the issue of slave ownership, and suggested several
times that if a way to preserve the Union and allow slavery could be found,
he'd be all for it. In the end, he worked towards abolishing this practice,
and should be greatly admired for that. But should he be presented as a
noble hero who dedicated his life to eradicating slavery? No.
Pointing out the complexities of the lives of men and women does not
diminish them, it makes them human. To do otherwise is to make them Gods. I
choose humans.
>
> If any of these interpretations of your underlying assumptions are grossly
> in error, I'd be happy to be corrected.
Every one, Platt. But I doubt my explanations will break you out of this
absolutist, dichotomous way of presenting things.
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 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 19:56:40 GMT