Yesterday, I wrote, in response to Paula:
> ...For certain purposes, getting down to particulars can just obscure the
> broad patterns, I think. In common parlance, this effect is called
> the error of "losing sight of the forest for all the trees."
It was late and I was tired, and didn't say quite what I meant to. Of
course it's necessary to look at the details of specific cases to obtain
real meaning, as Paula points out. I didn't mean to say otherwise, though
the statement above does seem to say such a thing, doesn't it? What I
should have said is that when we look at the particulars, we find certain
trends. It doesn't matter that we can find lots of counter-examples to
these trends for us to speak with some legitimate generality, I think, so
as to talk about the "injustices of European-derived societies toward
Native peoples" and to even name some of those injustices, such as the
forced sterilizations that have been mentioned in the current debate. If
we can document a significant number of such cases (and, yes, we can argue
about what is "a significant number"), it may not matter too much that
there was no official policy to conduct such operations. The fact is that
the system, taken as a whole, can then be said to condone the practice by
its failure to prevent it. Sins of omission are every bit as wicked and
deadly as sins of commission.
One point I want to stress, however, to prevent further misunderstanding
of the sort that seems to keep happening, is that I recognize and commend
those within European societies who do not condone such practices, and I
even am prepared to admit that they may be in the majority. However, if
these things continue to occur, it doesn't really matter what people think
and feel about them, and we can suspect that the European style of democracy,
in which these societies take such pride, may not really work all that well
in carrying out the will and intent of their citizens.
Further, in response to several personal messages I have received, I have
not, and do not intend to put myself in the position of defending the
opinions and statements of Peshewegunzh; he is quite capable of doing so
himself. I see myself as defending certain principles of logic and the
meaningful use of language and a procedure of discourse. Finding myself
able to cite certain of his statements as being meaningful and logical
and cogent does not imply that I accept his entire arguments. There are
certain premises, such as societally-based perceptual bias, which Peshe-
wegunzh has stated that appeal to me. I have not defended his style,
which some find unnecessarily confrontational, nor have I objected to it;
I have simply offered no comment. Only in extreme cases do I feel it to
be warranted that I intervene in my self-appointed role of moderator.
The votes of approval I have received so far seem to far outweigh the
complaints, for whatever that fact is worth.
I think we're getting near the heart of some very important matters in
these discussions, and I hope we can keep them alive, and possibly shift
the ground toward more general considerations relating to the interactions
between the First Peoples and those who later came to and inhabited those
lands they have called home for so long. I would still like to suggest
the idea of one or more discussions focussed around the text of certain
books, perhaps drawn from the lists which have been submitted by Duane-
Michael De Luca and Lisa Mitten, and from the one posted a while back
containing books recommended by Prof. John Mohawk. It seems to me that
if a discussion were based around the text of an easily-obtainable book
to which we could all refer, we might be able to examine some of these
ideas with more meaning. If anyone likes this idea, and would like to
participate, please drop me a note.
Gary
--
Gary S. Trujillo gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst