Re: Amerindian resistance mode (was: amerindian an offensive
Matt Silberstein (matts2@ix.netcom.com)
Fri, 06 Sep 1996 23:21:47 GMT
In sci.archaeology 102217.121@compuserve.com (Mark K. Bilbo) wrote:
>In article <504ti5$6fv@news.sdd.hp.com>,
>geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
>>Whether or not the message of black elk was
>>reshaped to make it more palatible for white consumption is immaterial;
>>in fact, it serves to illustrate further the process by which US
>>culture learns from other cultures
>Um, really?
>And if I pick up a book written in a language I do not understand but
>proceed to attach meanings to the words on the paper, am I then "learning"
>from that book?
What if I understand some, but not all. Can I learn then? Or do I need
to know everything about a culture before I can learn from it?
>Not, it is *not "immaterial." Though I will agree that this does rather
>illustrate the process of "learning" common to the US culture. That is, the
>reshaping of the "other" to suit cultural assumptions about the world then
>the pretending to have learned that one's own culture was "right" all
>along. It's an onanstic excersize I doubt qualifies as "learning."
Any examples or are we to accept this as revealed knowledge and merely
be impressed? And do you have evidence how this is different from
other cultures?
>>However, certain
>>ideas and perspectives have been adopted, and american culture is
>>better as a result.
>Any examples or are we to accept this as revealed knowledge and merely be
>impressed?
>>I would expect that reciprocal exchange would be a concept which is
>>found throughout indian culture.
>In many Indian cultures (plural, note the plural), yes. However,
>communication between conqueror and conquered is *not a reciprocal
>exchange. And the information flow is *always distorted by the power
>differential.
>US culture, by asserting its political and military dominance over the
>native nations, has completely closed the doors to any real communication.
>Communication between conqueror and conquered is *always distorted to suit
>the conquering culture's preconceptions. Dominant cultures always have to
>create mythologies that justify their dominance.
Any examples or are we to accept this as revealed knowledge and merely
be impressed? That is to say, can you show how this is always? And if
you can, can you show how you should, neverless, indict the US culture
as opposed to all dominate cultures.
[snip]
>>The west
>>has gained enormous power by bringing reason to bear on ignorance,
>ROFL!! That's funny. Tell me another.
How did they do it? By making a pact with the devil? By being
genetically inferior to Black people? By being genetically evil?
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
|