Since, as has been pointed out already, there are other forums
for this more general debate, I suggest that we avoid discus-
sing Brian's essentially religious grounds for objecting to the
practice of abortion under any circumstances unless having that
discussion can be justified on grounds of defending traditional
native peoples' practices or the feelings of contemporary native
people, primarily considered as members of their communities,
rather than as members of a larger society that may have largely
made an attempt to disrupt the fabric of those communities.
In other words, it does seem reasonably germane to our forum to
make a case either for or against the practice of abortion on
essentially religious grounds if the case rests on a set of values
which are held by a significant number of native people who feel
they are remaining true to their communities and to their tra-
ditional principles in advocating and practicing those values.
I don't mean to stifle debate, but to avoid having the slugfest
kind of discussion about a very controversial subject which is
only tangentially related to the topics we want to consider and
discuss by means of this mailing list / conference.
Thanks for your cooperation.
--Gary ]
At the risk of, well, whatever...
Krista writes:
> I have concluded that Native American cultures, past and present,
> are traditionally highly individualistic [ not group-first like us ].
The difference to note, as I see it, is that the foriegn (European)
culture harshly punishes difference. Belonging means conforming.
Difference is squelched. This creates the illusion that you belong
and pertain by conformance in ways unrelated to fulfilling your social
role. It further creates the illusion that by conforming, you are
now group oriented.
Try, for example, to imagine being a Punker in 1950 in Downtown
Mainstram America. Among a Native tribe (un-impeded by force
of imposed Euro-culture) you'd get complimented, or at worst, ignored.
Ever see a bank teller in full Punk regalia? An airline steward?
Try being non-secretively homosexual in 1950. You are homeless,
friendless, jobless, and without a people to belong to, except for a
prison population. Among the Native cultures I have studied you put
on a womans clothing, do a womans work, enjoy a womans privileges and
fulfill a womans' obligations, and that is the end of it.
You are walking your own way (individualistic), yet mindful of your place
in the social structure (willing to feel obliged to meet the groups needs
to the best of your ability). This is wherein the more-group-conscious
people are also more tolerant of difference, without any contradiction.
Again, go to the rich and powerful (in DMA) and tell them that you call
upon them to give the houses they rent to the people who rent them, to give
the Corporate stocks to the people who work in the company and actually give
value to those stocks, to render their costly services for free because they
do indeed have enough and to spare... and you'll get called commie or
just thrown out of the place, because with our lips we love our fellow
man, but our hearts are turned to ourselves. We all know their are
exceptions in all directions to generalizations this broad...
The Native cultures, again as I see it, feature significant individualisms
by virtue of not persecuting difference.
This in no way suggests that the differing individualists were NOT
highly conscious of their group identity and responsibility.
Homelessness amongst us is self-inflicted. This is a failure of group
needs consciousness. Homelessness among native cultures existed only as a
consequence of crime or war, and was rare from either source until We got
here.
How many of you gagged mentally upon seeing the words "social role"?
How many gag upon thinking of having your clan Elders tell you what your
role is, whether to be teacher, doctor, agriculturalist, or whatever?
Or even, how many are willing to hear counsel from your Elders telling
you what roles (plural) need you to fill them, and could you see yourself
feeling honor bound to select your career from among those choices?
Amongst us DMA folks, daring to say that a womans' primary responsibility
is to bear and care for children is asking for a flamefest.
"I'M going to be a wall-streek stockbroker, and make LOTS of money.
Then I'll help the poor who deserve it. Maybe when I'm 35 I'll have two
children. Maybe I'll scale that ambition down, but I'm ambition-driven!"
If we're so all-fired-up group oriented, howcome we employers don't arrange
the employment of our employees so that they (and us) can spend "quality
time" at the bedside of our social needs? Howcome World Wrestling Federation
events get more air time than Mayoral or Gubernatorial announcements of
where time and enregy and skill and money are needed to meet some need or
another? What do you mean, who say we are group oriented?
> Of course the group is important too, and in the old days, someone who
> committed crimes against the group was often exiled as punishment, and
> could very well die in the wilderness without group support.
Punishment by exile was the most severe punishment usually inflicted.
It WAS frequently a death sentence. Worse, it cut the victims heart
out, because, while *I* don't care if California says "never come back"
and can get along quite well if Mom & Dad say "go away", the much
more group oriented Native cultures felt a bitter loss at ostricization.
> I think that "individual needs versus society needs" is a universal
> conflict.
Where the people are self-oriented and the societal governors are
authoritarian, yes. Where the people are group-oriented, the needs
of the group are not a source of conflict. Where the government is
nurturant rather than authoritative, the willingness of the people
is not abused. Neither facet is prominent in DMA.
> The larger a group, the more compromise is required from
> every individual as well as sub-groups within the overall society.
nay, rather, the more authoritarian the government and the more
self-oriented the individuals.
> If anything, I would say that the very large U.S. with its
> representative form of government is more group-centered than the
> smaller Indian nations.
I believe I have illustrated why this is not so. What we DO have is
a very authoritarian government of a nation populated with groups of
internally compatible, but externally contentious self-oriented people.
Thinking we are group oriented suggents that we (the Govt of the USA)
would be happy to relax land claims on native lands because the group
there needs it. Our government, however, is committed to control, not
to service.
> Another example of group conformity is Japan, where population is
> extremely dense and polite manners are finely tuned in a mutually
> compromising system for getting along with others.
Conformity is not group-mindedness, their politeness is a cultural
phenomenon resulting from (not too long ago) power-of-death authority
walking the streets with no accountability to the people thus governed.
Their cultural politeness is not a bad thing. It is not the same as
being group-minded.
> There are many events in history where Indian nations split because
> individual leaders were too strongly principled to compromise.
we can be one group, or two groups, without giving up group-mindedness.
> And we are seeing in Europe today, many nations splitting up because of
> sub-group needs.
For the most part they are splitting up to escape authoritarian oppression.
> I wonder if very large nations can ever hold together.
It depends mostly upon how people treat one another, not how many people
there are.
> There is strength in unity because of shared resources and resulting wealth
> and military power.
Technological strength, yes. This is not strength. Strength is moral and
ethical strength. This strength was manifested at the second uprising
at Wounded Knee, when the U.S Gov't looked at the situation, decided that
the Native group had a just grievance and a legitimate claim to sovereignity,
and while it was noted that crushing the uprising would not require more
than a company of infantry, elected to re-write the boundries on the maps
to confirm to the Native land-claim. This is on page 1437 of "The History
of the United States as it Would Have Been had it Lived Up To It's
Potential Strength". Author unknown, never written or published.
> But the more that unity limits the freedoms of individuals, the more
> unstable it becomes.
meaning even group-minded people resist oppression
> The religious freedom in the U.S. has been a stabilizing factor.
> We have tended to tolerate diverse sets of morals.
Have we? Why was the Ghost Dance not danced between Wounded Knee,
1890, and Wounded Knee, 197X? Why was Mormon Polygamy banned? Why are
parents in 50 states fighting Social Services departments over how they
can administer corporal discipline to their children? Why has homosexual
inclination been socially suicidal? Why is declaring that women have,
as their primary responsibility, to bear and raise children, and that
men have, as their primary responsibility, to nurture their wives and
children outrageous or chauvinistic? Exactly, please, what diversity in
morals are we tolerant of?
> During the Civil War, abolition was the force that divided us.
Er... tarriff rates were more inflamatory, and States Rights vs Federal
Authority was not much cooler a subject. To this day the Civil War is
called "the war between the states" in history books published south of
the Mason-Dixon line.
> Today, it is abortion. Perhaps tomorrow it will be vegetarianism.
> So I think there may be a real choice between individual and nation
> here. I am pro-choice. I see abortion as an expedient choice in an
> over-populated time when there are few moral luxeries.
Ma'am, Sir, when you lay together to enjoy pleasure together, you
are making a decision and taking an action that might create life.
What you are talking about in the words "pro-choice" is not seeking
to make a second choice... to terminate the pregnancy or not... but
manifesting that you cannot see yourself as a member of a group of three-
him, her, and baby-soon-coming. You are all that matters to you when
you speak of "pro-choice". You made a decision, now you want to change
your mind. This is not "pro-choice" at all, but seeking the right or
permission to kill somebody as a means of changing your mind.
> But you know what? If it came down to outlawing abortion or having
> another civil war, I think I would be willing to compromise that single
> individual freedom for the sake of keeping the group together.
Thank you. I, similarly, refrain from warlike action in the face of
mountains of indignities and injustice going on around me. I think we
all do, or we become a cure worse than the disease. The Native population
of this continent had to choose between death by warfare and destruction
by capitulation many times over. It makes the struggle for abortion
rights simply laughable by comparison.
> I am both an individualist and a social person. To me, the bottom
> line is survival, and a large nation offers a better chance for me
> and my descendents.
In the presence of large, war-prone, bigoted peoples, this is very much
the case. Unless you happen to own good mountains, like the Swiss,
or lots of money like the Kuwaitis, be big or be eaten. This is not
a function of being social. This is a function of living next to
technologically sophisticated politically devious morally bankrupt
social gang-rape barbarians like Uncle Sam. Uncle Ivan was worse.
Might still be, but he's too hung over to tell right now.
> There are other freedoms I would never give up, such as freedom of
> speech and press, and freedom of religion, which includes the
> freedom to not practice the majority religion. But, no matter how
> many pro-choice friends I have, no matter how important it is to me
> and them for women to be free of oppression, I still cannot elevate
> free choice of abortion to the level of freedom of speech. Nor can
> I elevate the free choice of eating meat to the level of freedom of
> speech. Some day the world will be less expedient
(you use expedient where I use corrupt)
> than it is today, perhaps out of necessity. So, while pro-choice
> at present, I can't get motivated to fight for that particular
> freedom.
> On the other hand, I sure wouldn't want to see abortion illegal
> until adoption was a well-administrated
amen
> process and birth-control was free
last I heard abstinance didn't cost
> and sex education was standard
No sex outside of marriage. Questions? Class dismissed.
> and population was low enough
try: well enough behaved
> to sustain the natural environment and crime was so well
> dealt with that rape had ended forever. There are other bad things
> to work on first!
>
> Polite debate invited. :-)
> - Krista
brunner@kazoo.ssd.loral.com; Space Systems/Loral; Palo Alto, Calif.