Ray, At 03:18 27/07/99 -0400, you wrote: >This is a long document. If you are not up for it, >then accept my apologies and skip it. REH As you say, your message a long document and I don't understand most of it so I must confine myself to one or two brief points. >Keith, what I hear you saying, applied to the Chinese >situation, would be that destroying China's sovereignty in >order to open their market to opium was all right in the >ultimate scheme of things. Is that correct? Not at all. Here was one so-called sovereign nation, Great Britain, fighting another so-called sovereign nation, China (as well as simultaneously fighting other so-called sovereign nations such as India, Afghanistan, Egypt and other chunks of Africa and goodness knows what else all over the world) not in the name of opium but in the name of Gatling guns, Maxims and Ironclads. In other words, the Opium War was not a private action by opium merchants, but part of the imperialistic drive of European nations, of which GB was the chief culprit. (KH, replying to TL) >> I don't disagree with most of what you have written below. But the matter >> of the effects of direct confrontation between invaders and indigenous >> people is really only confusing the issue. The real influence is that of >> trade and the availability of new goods. (REH) >I love the word "real" it is the ultimate put down. >Anything outside of government or private enterprise >is "unreal". The same as in International politics. This was not intended to be a put-down. I'll subsitute "real" for "fundamental" or "basic" or "essential". >Keith, I note >that you had nothing to say about the Tin Drum piece >that I put on this list, but I would suggest you >read the Edward Everett Dale quote. I didn't have time to read it, I'm afraid. >Point three: the bigotry is built around such uses of >language in which the Indian is considered polluted if he >decides to absorb something from trade but the European >is called "flexible and progressive". That allows the >European to convince himself that he is bringing progress >to a stale society. For my part, I simply don't use the word "progress" in my thinking or writing. I really do not know whether our civilisation will prove to be any better or worse than those of the past. (I use the word "process", rather than "progress".) I guess that it will be but I don't know for certain. All I know is that when better goods come along at cheaper prices then everybody -- but everybody -- goes for it and the customs and practices that went with the old goods simply does not survive. (KH) >> Earlier still, look at the speed at which the atlatl (and, later, its >> development as the bow-and-arrow) was accepted by the *whole* of mankind as >> it was then (circa 15,000BC) -- because it instantly raised hunting >> productivity many many times over. (REH) >I had no idea the Aztecs were 15,000 years old. I understand that the archeologists believe that the atlatl -- or sprung throwing stick -- was invented somewhere in the north Africa-MiddleEast-Turkey area, as was the bow-and-arrow a little later. >The truth IMHO Ed and Keith is that what you and the >economic and social sciences are doing is >no more accurate than astronomy was before Hubbell. I am neither economist nor social scientist, but in their defence I'd suggest that they are trying to grapple with one of the the most complex of all disciplines -- human behaviour -- and I wouldn't be too hard on them. But, already, some fundamental scientific truths have emerged which, I suggest, will stand the test of time (or as ,ong as the human species is alive, anyway). Among these are Ricardo''s Law of Comparative Advantage, and Alexrod's Co-operation Theory. (KH) >> You say you respect the culture of North American Indians. This implies >> that I don't respect them. Of course I do. All I am saying is that large >> chunks of their culture (such as languages) have disappeared because >> they're irrelevant in modern-day practice and that no amount of artificial >> encouragement (unless it be for the tourist trade) will save it. New >> customs will arise in due course, and those will be respected, too. (REH) >Keith, if you want to know what you are losing with the >death of the languages then consider the following: >it ultimately won't effect the outcome because the >battle over this is not scientific or economic, >(efficiency is cheaper) but political and cultural imperialism. Yes, I appreciate this, and, yes, nation-state politicians in all countries have tried to stamp out minority languages for the sake of establishing firmer control. But they don't always succeed and whether a language survives or not is very much more to do with whether it's in the interests of the people within the relevant region. >The way that people see and symbolize the world >around them has a profound effect upon practice. >It is that practice which has so devastated >the world wherever the Europeans have wandered. Yes, we've created a lot of mess around the world, but it's also a fact that most nations of the world aspire to a European/american way of life. >David Bohm the physicist wanted to create a new >language that could encompass the ambiguity of >uncertainty . . . David Bohm is one of my heroes and I've read most of his work -- if not all -- in times past. It remains to be seen whether his view of reality is better than the quantum view (I believe that it will be). I won't comment on what you've written below because, mostly, there's no dispute -- except that I don't believe that there's any conspiracy against Algonquin! Best wishes, Keith >He said that the standard languages that >he knew could not and therefore needed to be adjusted. >As physicist David Peat points out: "even language >itself is viewed through the perspective of European >languages and world view." Thoughts are inseparable >from language and with the invention of writing, dumbing >down the subtlety of sound, thoughts become intimately >tied to the linearity of writing. But reality is not linear. > >This is why Bohm needed his language. I forget what he >called it but he didn't succeed. He did, however, just before >he died, discover a human language that encompassed >what he had needed for his science. It was when a group >of indigenous Algonquin scientists visited him that he >found that they simply understood his concepts. It was >imbedded in their language. > >So, will the world progress into quantum speech by abandoning >English and learning Algonquin? Not on your life. They >will just assure their survival by making sure that Algonquin >doesn't survive instead and struggle to squeeze these new >concepts into old wineskins not made for such a thing. >That is what it is all about IMHO and not trade or >economics or any of those other rationalizations for >destroying your neighbor. > >If this doesn't do it, I give up. I have much to much >to do as a private impresario and teacher to put this >much work into any of this. But I just can't stand by >and let the mis-conceptions pass for science or historical >reality. Obviously there will be those who think I am the >prejudiced bigot but I have put bibliographies written >by non Indian scholars on this list many times in the >past. I just don't have time to do it now, but thanks >anyway. I like both Keith and Ed but I think you are >both wrong on these issues. I also know that Ed >has worked with native people in Canada. That is >why I am surprised by some of his opinions but I >don't like all of the people that I have worked with >either and I have difficulty with some of their cultures >as well so......As for the native land >in Canada, why should any of us ever believe that >a country would give back land to a sovereign >people without strings. They don't do it in Iraq or >Turkey or anywhere else. Why should it be done >here? > >REH > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
