On 21 April, darmhk@ksuvm.ksu.edu (Dorothy Roberts) writes:
> Michael Pollard (?) resigned from NN because he was tired of Peshe's
> diatribes and polemics about Europeans. Babs noted that her parents are
> of mixed racial heritage, and that she was equally tired of the Peshe's
> labeling and bashing. Then Gary gets in with the following "translation"
> of Pollard's position which missed the point entirely - which was a vast
> disappointment in that it seems Gary has succumbed to the bash-syndrome,
> too...
[ As I pointed out in my inserted remarks to Dorothy's original article,
she is talking about Michael McDonald. Liz Pollard wrote an article in
this series also, in which she expressed a desire to get back to the
original subject concerning the matter of abortions being performed
without anesthesia on Inuit women in the Northwest Territories (Canada)
without informing them of whatever options they might have had. ]
Pardon me, but I'm not sure we're listening carefully to one another, folks.
I wasn't attempting to "translate" anything, but only to point out certain
points regarding what I heard Peshewegunzh saying, and what he seemed to be
(or might have been) saying. I agreed with him only so far as to observe
that there is such a phenomenon of having what I referred to as "cultural
blinders," which prevent one from seeing past certain assumptions about the
way the world operates or should operate. Further, I tried to suggest that
certain norms of European culture might be such as to place a heavier value
on individual rights than those of some other societies. Neither point, I
feel, puts me in the camp with those who would excoriate Europeans as a class
for the excesses of certain of their number, and I didn't hear Peshewegunzh
identifying himself with such a position in this article either. (He has,
on occasion, said something expressive of a vain hope that all of the de-
scendents of the European colonists of North America would simply "go home."
I took that remark as being rather tongue-in-cheek or ironic, however.)
> Gary's assumption of meaning goes like this:
>
> ]There is a perception that I {Euro-Americans} cannot be held accountable for
> ]what is/was done by someone in my society in places/times distant from
> ]here/now, even if those actions/events benefit my present existence in some
> ]material way. Further, I am given by my society no incentive to investigate
> ]any possible connections..... As long as I can claim "plausible deniability"
> ]my conscience remains clear, it seems.
> ]Yes, there is no typical NATIVE person.....
>
> But there is a "typical" European.....???? All Europeans are greedy,
> materialist, domineering, gutless escapees of all moral responsibility??????
Let's go back to the remarks of Peshewegunzh for a moment, to get some context
for my remarks. He said:
| Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 3:13:43 EDT
| Subject: abortion and indigenous peoples
|
| To explain a bit, it doesn't just have to do with an individual white male
| exploiting one Indian woman, though for sure we know that occurs time and
| time again. It has to do with the entire European culture metaphorically
| playing that exploitative and manipulative role, as against the entire
| indigenous community in question...
Peshewegunzh is talking here, I think, not about a collection of individuals,
each of which is personally responsible for the exploitation and manipulation.
I would like to think the problem is really as simple as this - one of simple
misunderstanding, but I'll continue nonetheless, just to make my feelings
as clear as possible.
My remarks, appended to Michael's article, contain the following paragraph:
| As to Michael's comments ... as contrasted with those of Peshewegunzh ...,
| it seems clear to me that one difficulty comes from the effect of having
| a different set of starting assumptions or perceptions. European-based
| societies, such as that of "mainstream" North America, appear to be char-
| acterized by a definition of self that is very individualized. I think this
| attitude can be read very clearly in Michael's comments wherein he contrasts
| the "sins of the parents" with actions that are the responsibility of suc-
| ceeding generations. There is a perception that I cannot be held accountable
| for what is/was done by someone in my society in places and times distant from
| there here and now, even if those actions and events benefit my present exist-
| ence in some material way. Further, I am given by my society no incentive to
| investigate any possible connections between my own benefit, comfort, and
| prosperity and those actions and events, thereby "locking in" the advantage of
| what may have been gained by plunder and exploitation by people acting on my
| behalf. As long as I can claim "plausible deniability," my conscience remains
| clear, it seems.
I have *not* said there is a typical European. I talked about European
*society*, not about individual members of that society. I think this
difficulty of understanding can be so basic within these societies that
it can be extremely difficult for their members to see how their society
as a whole functions, and how it operates on the world and on segments of
the world. The point is that I am not talking about individual members
of societies, and have not even commented on how those members might share
in the blame for the misdeeds of their societies. This subject is very
complex, in my mind, and I don't feel able to address it properly in a
few words. However, I will say that I feel Dorothy has completely mis-
construed my words. (Some may feel that I have similarly misrepresented
Michael's meaning, but I don't see myself as having been responding to it
directly, though it did provide the impetus for my comments.)
To put the whole matter in one statement, I would say that it is possible
for a society to be responsible as a whole for some result without requiring
that each member of the society shares the blame for that result (except in
a rather special sense that I'll get to in a moment).
Going back to one sentence from Peshewegunzh:
| ...It has to do with the entire European culture metaphorically
| playing that exploitative and manipulative role, as against the entire
| indigenous community in question...
Note that he is not talking about individuals either. I think that's
the whole problem - we who accept the "European mentality" (might I be
forgiven for using such a term?) in North America and elsewhere may find
it hard to avoid the kind of reductionism that seeks to attack a problem
by grinding up the organism into a fine powder so as to identify the
problem's source somewhere among the grains. Perhaps what makes the
problems of the interactions between Native people and European-style
governments so intractable is that it can be so difficult and frustrating
trying to find someone who is responsible or accountable. I could recite
many examples, but I'll assume for now that we can all derive them from
personal experience and a basic knowledge of the "political process"
in such societies.
Note also that I am not seeking to issue a blanket condemnation of such
societies. If it doesn't sound too patronizing, I'd like to say that
they possess many fine and potentially-redeeming features, of which I
could, again, offer an entire litany. However, it appears to me that
we have far to go to even approach this potential.
> All Europeans, all European institutions, all European history, anything to do
> with European anything, brands one as less than worthwhile, human, worthy of
> consideration, dignity or respect???? An Eye for an Eye - you did it to us
> so we have the vengeful right to do it to you - regardless of who YOU are???
> IF you're European, you're "fair game"??????? IF you have one drop of
> European blood, you're "guilty"?????
Who ever said such a thing, Dorothy? Please be more specific. It sounds
to me as if you may be reading an awfully lot between the lines here. I'm
more interested in remedies than in assigning blame anyway. What I'm talking
about is how do we answer the question of how we permit indigenous societies
to restore themselves. Sure, looking at historical wrongs and their insti-
tutional legacies can be part of the solution, but I think we have to go a
fair ways beyond such things to even have a chance of coming up with realis-
tic and effective countermeasures to what I hope we can agree are centuries
of institutionalized violence against Native peoples. And yes, we can some-
times find very specific villians. But we all become responsible, I think,
to the extent that we fail to examine and own up to our own complicity in
these great wrongs and to the extent that we fail to do what we can to seek
out and stop patterns of abuse and discrimination and subtle forms of damage
to Native people and their cultures. In that sense alone do I feel all Euro-
peans to be responsible - but that's a far cry in my mind from assigning the
kind of guilt that the blood lust you describe would be hungry to uncover
and punish.
> I submit that those people who get on this net to learn and discuss do not
> deserve this sort of hatefulness. I submit that those who get on this net
> realize at least some of the magnitude of the problems facing the world today
> and do not deserve to be the butt's of one man's misdirected rage...
Where is the rage you cite, Dorothy?
> I have a child coming. Do I raise him to hate his mother and half of himself,
> and to love his father and half of himself????
I would certainly hope you do neither. But I would also offer the wish that
you help him learn the complexities of the world into which he is born at a
time when he can handle them properly - a little at a time, I would think.
It seems that the real mischief ensues when we oversimplify issues and look
for scapegoats and victims. If you can teach your child to look into himself
for an understanding both of the problems and their solutions, and if others
can do the same, perhaps our world has some slim chance.
> I heard something at a lecture recently, from someone who was talking about
> college students. The comment was that of all the values, hope, courage,
> integrity, etc. that we need to teach our children, the most important value
> for them to learn is tolerance; the ability to accept, appreciate, and
> to BRIDGE differences, to reach beyond differences to find that which is
> common between two human persons. Without tolerance, there is no room for
> discussion, no respect between them, no reason to reach out beyond or to
> transcend differences.
Amen. I respectfully submit that one of the first steps in achieving such
tolerance lies in listening carefully to those who appear to be our adver-
saries, and to see and feel what we have in common with them. For as long
as we feel we are really different in some fundamental way, our tolerance
is likely to be forced and inauthentic. If we can see ourselves in the
other and him/her in ourselves, I think we have a far better chance of really
living in a spirit of tolerance and acceptance. And if we don't see this
commonality at first, then maybe we need to look a bit harder until we do.
At the possible risk of further misunderstanding, I would humbly offer the
personal observation that listening is not a skill much admired or rewarded
in conventional European society - so much so that books and courses on the
subject have become necessary, in fact.
> I had had hopes that a goodly portion of this net would be a discussion for
> the purpose of learning about each other, a sharing of information, a way
> to connect folks in widely diverse places, physically and metaphysically, and
> to find ways to bridge the differences.
I hope and trust that it still can be. At the risk of being somewhat trite,
I'd like to echo the sentiments of one of the early American "patriots" that
"Either we hang together or we'll hang separately." (who said that, history
buffs? :-)
> To say that all Europeans are alike
> is as ignorant, stereotypical, and narrow-minded as saying all Natives are
> alike.. To say that Europeans are the root of all evil is to equally deny
> personal responsibility. that the rest of Europe was out to shame and
> humiliate him personally.
Indeed. Would the person who admits to saying such a thing please step
forward to accept the judgement and censure of this assemblage? :-)
> All of us that Peshe tells to "GO HOME" are tired of the endless manipulation
> by guilt he tries to employ, because we ARE home...
I'll let Peshewegunzh handle this one, and to explain what he did say and
how he really feels and what he meant by the remark (made some months ago,
as I recall).
> At this point, I am grieved and close to despair that any of us will ever get
> beyond our own pain and fear, and am going nomail for a bit...
Well, you are free to do so, Dorothy, but I will see to it at least that you
receive this reply. It seems a tad defeatist to leave us just after delivering
some remarks that might have even changed our thinking, for all you know.
> Mark Dewart, I hope things go well with your work in education. Caring
> teachers are so desperately needed by all our children....
Indeed they are, and based on my personal conversations with him, I know
Mark to be one such person, speaking of which, if anyone reading this article
is not yet on the Native education mailing list who would like to be, please
drop me a note. Mark and I are about to announce what we hope will sound
like interesting developments with our "Native schools" project.
Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From the grab-bag of recent comments on this discussion:
1.
| I think the debate has been informative, a bit heated to be sure, but
| enlightening.
|
| It is certainly not going along the same lines as the pro-choice versus
| anti-abortion debate now raging, for example in Buffalo.
|
| I'm certainly not tired of it, though I don't carefully read every
| piece that comes out.
2.
| In reference to the character of this debate, I'm just sick of hearing
| it. Sorry, but I don't think anybody's mind will be changed by this kind
| of off the cuff bickering. Most people's opinions on this issue were
| formed long ago either by childhood teaching or personal experience, and
| that kind of bias does not lend itself well to persuasion, friendly or
| otherwise.
|
| I do not feel that discussion should be limited, but it might be worth
| pointing out that there are more appropriate outlets for it. There are
| other lists on both Bitnet and the Internet that are geared toward social
| problems in general or this one in particular, as well as organizations
| (religious and otherwise) which sponsor bulletin boards for this type of
| discussion. What bothers me most here is that a pretty important issue got
| buried in a very emotional discussion... This topic is so emotionally
| loaded for people on either side of the argument that it is difficult to
| keep it from getting out of hand and a great deal of hurt from resulting.
| I recently saw this happen on [another mailing list] to the point that
| several members signed off with *very* bitter messages. I would hate to
| see it happen here.
3.
| I find it disurbing, but I also think thats to the good, and the
| discussion should continue.
| Alternatively, since it does involve a lot of opinionation, perhaps
| those interested in carrying it on could form an ad-hoc mailing list
| among themselves, and post a summary/condensation/archive file to NatNet
| every so often.
4.
| ...It might be within your management rights to referee the contestants
| with some advice. I would tell them that the substance of the
| discussion has been quite informative, and wonderfully articulate at
| times, but that what has become disturbing is a very old problem: ad
| hominem arguments. Little ad hominem sniper fire has escalated into
| various fire bombs. The "flame" jargon fits well, since the effect is
| to scorch a much wider emotional swath than the sharper rational edge
| promised. It's an ancient problem. Of course the stakes are enormous
| in a discussion which includes genocide, but clearly the old, immature
| ad hominem approach merely recycles the worst aspects of that history.
| Not that "being reasonable" will alone solve the problem, but
| adversarial rhetoric, as Carl Rogers has pointed out, misses all the
| opportunities for mediation and mutual resolution which a less emotional
| approach might recognize.
--
Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst