|
|
Re: dead rich white and other...
Robert Johnson (johnsorl@COLORADO.EDU)
Sun, 9 Jul 1995 00:41:48 -0600
Recently this posting was sent to arch-theory in response to my
statement that much of archaeology in the United States participates
in the continuing injustice of cultural genocide against Native
American peoples. I consider it a typical example of the shallow
ignorance and facades of effected "intellectuality" which justifies
the archaeology "industry" in the United States. I would suggest that
the "routine" matter of the "replacement" of one people by another
which this filth conveys not only cloaks an ignorance of history and
legality, but also conveys the "banality" of evil which infects,
rationalizes, and further proselytizes the activities of archaeology
and anthropology against the indigenous peoples of humankind.
My original posting also spoke of the illegal occupation of lands
affirmed in treaty to Native American tribal groups by the U.S.
government.
I also submit in several following postings ethnographic statements
which convey the deep pain the indigenous peoples of "America"
experience from the activities which proceed from john celenza's
"excuses."
Robert Johnson
On Sat, 24 Jun 1995 Jpc12243@aol.com wrote:
> You know, Robert, you would be a lot better at this if you were to avoid the
> knee-jerk political catchwords. I find "illegal occupation", for instance, an
> interesting concept for an someone in an archaeological forum.
> Archaeologists, of all people, would be intimately aware that the
> displacement of one people by another people is a routine matter in human
> history and the number of peoples not guilty of displacing other peoples and
> "illegally occupying" their lands is at most a couple dozen. The Arunta in
> Australia, a number of the polynesians, the Ohlone in California, the Ituri
> Pigmies. "Indigenous" is an often misused word these days, and, when
> correctly used, is rare.
>
> Are we to remove the Europeans AND the Apache, the Shoeshone, the Cherokee,
> the Sioux, etc., etc. from America and return the land to the
> no-longer-existing peoples who came in on the first migrations across the
> Baring Straits? Consistency is important. If the European occupation of
> america is "illegal", then what is the "legality" of the Sioux occupations of
> the Plains and part of the Carolinas when they migrated from Canada?
>
> In fact, i have a lot of trouble discerning the distinctions here. The only
> underlying criteria that seems to be in effect is racism. When the "white"
> Europeans did it, it's illegal; when the "red" Native Americans (i.e. the
> people who emigrated from Asia) did it, it's legal.
>
> I agree with you. There is racism here. But i think you need to look a little
> coser to find it.
>
> john celenza
>
|