jdmann@igc.org (David Yarrow), 8/29/91, wrote:
> One of English society's remarkable features is its ability
> to absorb and unify all these groups. But then, it's a small island.
>
> Perhaps the principal factor bringing about this unity has been
> religion in the form of Christianity. It was conversion to
[^^^^^^^^^^]
> Christian faith which fostered a common cultural and ethical respect.
[...]
> It's, of course, tragic the English then became such terrible
> racists upon their invasion of North America, Africa, India, and
> other lands.
Perhaps the principal factor bringing about this tragedy has been religion in
the form of Christianity. It was *proselytizing* the Christian faith which
sustained a total cultural and ethical disrespect.
*************** |{hm kerry miller <ASTINGSH@KSUVM.BITNET>
[ In reading David's article, it appears to me that he is attempting to
account for the unity among people from among all the ethnic groups he
identifies as comprising what has become English society. He is proba-
bly correct in his claim that Christianity is largely responsible for
the relative unity found among those within what became that society
who were converted to that faith.
What Kerry appears to be describing as a tragedy is the personal suf-
fering and cultural destruction that came about in the process of
Christian missionaries and the military forces of countries claiming
to be Christian attempting (usually successfully in the end) to impose
their brand of religion upon people they identified as "heathens."
In reviewing the discussion that has been going on for the past week
or so on this subject, it strikes me that people may, to some extent,
be talking at cross-purposes. Perhaps some people are trying to talk
about the mechanism by which people differentiate themselves and their
societies from one another for the purpose, perhaps, of one group
justifying in their own collective mind the conquest or some other form
of treatment of another group whom they hold to be inferior, or in some
way threatening to their own way of life, while others seem to want to
find systems of thought, such as Christianity, to blame for the process.
I would submit that we have at least two distinct questions before us.
One deals with understanding the mechanism by which people distinguish
themselves from one another and justify the forms of behavior they may
practice in their dealings with members of groups that can be distin-
guished from their own group. The second question deals with what we
might identify as the logic and the ethics of that behavior.
Thus, there need be no real disagreement between David and Kerry here.
David is trying to describe the unity that Christianity brought about
among those who adopted it, not to attempt to justify it on that basis,
or on any other, for that matter. Unity often comes at a terrible
price, in that it can produce even greater convictions about the need
to conquer and subdue those identified as foreign, or to see them as
a threat.
There's also the question of how much of what people who identify
themselves as Christians can authentically claim to be based on the
teachings of Jesus, who they claim as the founder of that faith, and
how much, if any, of the conquest carried out in his name he might
have condoned, but that's a much larger and even stickier issue.
To really evaluate what David has to say about Glastonbury and other
places in other parts of the world that might perform a similar fun-
ction of unifying a society, we would need to understand more about
the specific history of that place, and to hear from David what he
feels might serve that role for other cultures. In particular, I am
interested to know how much warfare there might have been among the
various tribes who lived on the American continent in what I think
was relative peace with one another, and whether a general agreement
on spiritual and political values was sufficient to produce that
unity, or whether that harmony was obtained only after considerable
struggle or some series of events or the emergence of charismatic
leaders who brokered agreements or performed the function of prophets.
Is there anthropological evidence to account for whatever unity may
have existed, or do I have my facts wrong entirely?
--Gary ]