I can certainly see your point about "dualism" and what is for you a negative
effect upon the development of religion in both Europe and our world. But I
have one major problem with your analysis.
You seem to attribute the development of dualism to Augustine, et al. Going
back, even further to Plato, dualism is obviously a central tenet of European
and Med. thought. And I agree with your evaluation of this development's
effect on the interpretation of Jesus's message. The problem with your
statement is that you neglect the possibility (certainty in my mind) that
native societies had developed a similar concept contemporaniously.
I am no expert in comparative theology. But have you never come across a native
religion which contained a dualistic theme? The Rotinohshonni (Hodenosaunee/
Hotinoshonni/Iroquois) system of thought certainly contained a dualism of good
and evil before European thought could have possibly influenced it. The point
of my statement was to argue that even with this native concept of dualism,
the outcomes or manifestation of that belief need not be insensitive to the
natural balance between the two.
Without clarification on your part, I am forced to believe that the ethno-
centricity exhibited by earlier scholars who viewed all ideas as having
eminated from the classical grecian mind remains pervasive.
[P.S. Another response to my postings from "Hitchhiker" asserted that I was
offending the reader by daring to think that we Indians could learn some-
thing from Europeans. I'm sorry "Hitchhiker," as I have argued above, ideas
know no racialist boundaries. We actually do have some things to learn from
them. I will clarify my point though, we ALL have things to learn. I did not
mean to convey the sense that I viewed European religions as superior to our
own. If anything, the balance sheet of contributions made to each other's
thought in terms of value (not just quantity) greatly favors us.
"Hitchhiker" seems a little simplistic in his views. In another posting,
the political solutions for Indians were explained by "Hitchhiker" as
consisting of (PARAPHRASE) "kicking out the BIA and letting the Indians
run their own affairs." Well, we all have no love for the BIA, but this
cavalier attitude benefits no one. I would dearly love to see the BIA or
DIAND in Canada get out of our lives, but we have found and observed among
other communities that things are a lot more complicated than that simple,
though powerful, message promises at first glance. Anyone who has spent actual
years working in tribal governance knows that the BIA or DIAND is a major
part of the institutional reality facing Indians today. Academics or critics
in our position may make points screaming for such moves, but kicking out the
BIA in one fell swoop is only going to benefit Congressional budget planners.
Consider the reality of our modern situation rather than a fantastic idealized
world of uncompromised "Indian vs. White" worlds and you'll find the linkages
get in your face at every turn.]
Skennen (Peace),
Gerald Alfred
Cornell Univ.