>> What's with "benign"?
>
>> There are shelves full of "benign" Amerindian tales in libraries
>> everywhere--emasculated, sanitized, predigested pap! Lots of
>> them written for non-native audiences as charming "folk tales",
>> remnants of the "olden days".
>
> Ok, Ok... I stand corrected. Perhaps I should have used "non-controversial"
> rather than benign--Holy cow, are you all touchy out there or what?
Given the diversity of native peoples--a diversity not nearly credited
fully enough--what should be controversial is any effort to generalize.
Unfortunately, one often finds that people who know one tradition well
assume it to be so for everyone. Am I touchy, yeah. I am. I'd rather
a fair fight than a non-controversial pleasantry any day.
> Kidding aside, we are interested in identifying recent scholarship which is
> considered controversial. The linkage that we are trying to establish is
> that of "appropriation." That is, using information from another culture
> for purposes of validating their own.
There's a difference between the words "appropriate" and "misappropriate".
I think it's a difference worth honouring. You build from what you know
to what you do not know. I do not think that is MISappropriation.
Misappropriation is when one uses information, material, etc. in some way
other than what you had permission to do with it. Misappropriation is when
you do not respect the privacy and integrity of another person. Appropriation
is part of any learning process. The poet R.M. Rilke said it better--"With
words and pointing fingers, we make the world our own."
> Examples include:
>
> Ruth Benedict: Patterns of Culture. She typecasts Pueblo Indians as
> "dionysians" and Plains Indians as "apollinarians."
The distinction I believe Benedict is making is one that was first
made by Frederich Nietzsche as a paradigmatic metaphor for the human
race. Your distinction of Dionysean as "passive noble" and
Plains as "aggressive-warrior" are not Apollonian/Dionysean
descriptors. Nietzsche's metaphor is much more complex than that.
Nevertheless, it IS a metaphor.
You might instead better argue that Benedict's use of the metaphor is out-
dated since it's not one routinely taught in liberal arts curricula
anymore. (At least my students always look at me blankly if I note
of something that it seems "Apollonian"...etc. On the other hand, my
students are interested to learn, and it IS a nifty metaphor for
some things.) But, if nobody knows what you're talking about when
you say "Apollonian" or "Dionysean" then you're better off sighing
and finding some other cogent descriptor.
> Ramon Guiterrez: When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away. This is a
> freudian analysis focused on SW contact between the Pueblo and Spanish.
Here you and I probably have a point of agreement. I grit my teeth
whenever I run across a Freudian analysis of an indigenous...whatever.
Unlike the Apollonian/Dionysean distinction--which is clearly stated
to be a metaphor by Nietzsche--followers of Freud believe they are being
scientific, not just interpretive. On the whole, Freudianism is a system
so culture bound, it doesn't travel well (most women will tell you that,
too) outside Freud's own world of Victorian masculinity.
> I am interested in identifying more examples, not particularly in defending
> the above examples.
What I hope you will want to do is write about the Pueblo yourself. And
if your interests lead you to write about Mohawks or Koreans or Kelts, I
hope you will follow your interests and learn from whoever is willing to
teach you--and acknowledge that teacher.
With best wishes,
Maureen Korp, PhD
University of Ottawa