On Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 19:35:41 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: >Bill: >>On Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 21:11:10 (-0500) Yoshie Furuhashi writes: >>>... >>>While I am sympathetic to David Harvey's pro-urban + anti-primitivist >>>strain of thought (and distrustful of the rhetoric of the "noble savage"), >>>does it really matter (to marxists as political activists, that is) whether >>>Native Americans were ever or are really now "close to nature," >>>"ecologically conscious," etc? What's wrong with Native Americans >>>performing "Native Americans" if such performance helps them make a >>>stronger claim to their land rights in a war of positions? Native Americans >>>may well decide that under the present circumstances, benefits of this >>>rhetoric far outweigh its dangers. In the past, abolitionists, in their >>>agitation, appealed to and grounded their claims upon God, morality, >>>natural rights, etc., mainly because those were powerful ideological >>>resources that were available to them. The same can be said about "nature" >>>for Native Americans: a useful political resource. >> >>One's "useful political resource" is another's dishonest rhetoric. I >>don't have too much of a problem with lying when desperate measures >>are called for, but we should at least label it for what it is. > >Lying normally refers to conscious deception. I think that abolitionists >who spoke of God's judgment upon slaveowners were and Native Americans who >say their tradition has been on the whole ecologically correct are sincere >in their beliefs. > >On the other hand, my post raised the question of how marxists may view the >rhetoric of those groups whose cause they generally support. A topic >different from your question. That's not how it sounds to me. You ask "does it really matter" about the truth of the image of the "Native American". You ask "what's wrong" with them using these (perhaps deceptive) images to "make a stronger claim to their land rights". You weren't just asking "how marxists may view" these practices, you were asking what appeared to me to be rhetorical questions in support of those practices. If *you* are aware that the images and rhetoric are fake, and you as a "marxist[] and political activist[]" reproduce them without noting the (possible) lack of veracity, I'd call that "conscious deception". I guess I should have been clearer: yes, I agree with you that Native Americans probably sincerely believe this rhetoric (at least, it's not unreasonable to suppose so). But once you, as someone who supposedly is a bit more detached from their day-to-day struggles and who has knowledge that may (at least partly) contradict this rhetoric, begin to perpetuate it you have therefore begun a string of lies. I'm just urging caution for us to not simply accept the rhetoric and pass it on without labeling it for what it is (I'm also certainly not saying we should do so without seriously understanding everything that is going on, either). This also begs the question of whether or not we should even address the issue if the options are either to pass on misleading information (myths) or to examine it and tell the truth and weaken the Native American movement for justice (assuming, again, that these really are myths). It seems we have two options: either keep our hands off of this topic, or tell the truth about it. Bill
