>Sue wrote:
>Having lived in Australia for a while, I've been able to absorb some sense
>of the indigenous cultural values... an individual from the
>time of birth is tied into a complex and significant web of
>relationships.... >kinship, not...individualism....(on) these discernable
>principals...I... would >base the organisation of a fair and functioning
>society.
>Chick: Sue, you are right and this is the point. The Conservative concept
>of Individualism and adherence to the term, that one must be an island unto
>them selves and if you are not or are incapable of being an island unto
>yourself, than you are a worthless being and are therefore only to serve
>those who are, is simply a means of keeping the individuals fighting amongst
>themselves. Divide and conquer. And while you and I fight between us for
>our position in society and/or for that almighty dollar, those who, in whose
>best interest it is, are getting wealthy and constantly and consistently
>gaining more and more power over us, who are constantly required to pay the
>interest on their borrowed money.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply Chick. My only comment on first 'skim'
is to distance myself from the "we" who "often refer to (indigenous
peoples) as primitive", though of course you are correct in asserting many
do! .
>We..... have our societies structured similar to those of the
>indigenous people, who, in our arrogance, we often refer to as primitive,
>but we either can not see it or refuse to believe it or understand it.
Yes Chick, and one has to be somewhat 'inducted' or as we jokingly say,
assimilated into indigenous culture to begin to appreciate the
awe-inspiring complexity of a conscious world created when the emphasis is
less on the material, and more on the cerebral.
My belief is that the very dichotomy between the two is the crux of the
colonials need to crush and refute indigenous world views. Racism is a
furphy.
As you say : "The concept of possession may be a priority in our
>minds in this day and age but it is an excellent method to produce more
>power for and by those in control of the creation of money. (personal
>opinion)"
In my personal opinion the resurrection of value systems parallel to the
indigenous are a requirement of altering our present system for the better.
I observe that Canada and Australia seem to have empoyed very similar
methods in their domination of the first peoples.
yours, Sue (xytjfhrj) !
>Heaven forbid that we might learn from someone lesser than ourselves. The
>main character we can see when truly studying human development and societal
>structure is the balance between, or at least the need for balance between
>the needs, rights and responsibilities of the individual with the societies
>need and responsibility to each and every citizen. In truth we seem, in
>general, to have as much a lack of understanding of our rights and
>responsibility, in other words our relationship or kinship to the other
>individuals in our society, and they to us, as we do with the understanding
>of the true meaning of the word freedom.
>
>
>
>The arrogant, cruel and violent means in which the Europeans stripped the
>indigenous people of the world of their land, in the United States it was
>called "Manifest Destiny," in the name of God no less, and then to claim the
>right of ownership, not only stripped the freedom of the people but also
>their dignity and humanity, that is of course for those who were lucky
>enough, or I suppose unlucky enough, to have lived, but also calls into
>question our supposed sense of freedom, humanity, and yes Christianity. The
>question has to be asked, what gave the King or Queen of a far off land, who
>in truth was or is only a human being like you and I, the right to lay claim
>to someone else's land.
>
>
>
>The concept of the "Land owing the People" is not one of just the aboriginal
>people of Australia but of the entire world and it is only by arrogance has
>it been confiscated. The concept of possession may be a priority in our
>minds in this day and age but it is an excellent method to produce more
>power for and by those in control of the creation of money. (Personal
>opinion)
>
>
>
> We love to talk about fighting for freedom and the illegal right of
>governments to impose restrictions on who we can hate etc. But if a
>religion can tell me that I can not marry or interrelate with someone who is
>not of the same religion, the same colour, the same culture, or heaven
>forbid, someone by the name of xytjfhrj, then where is the freedom that the
>religion is supposedly in favour of.
>
>SUE: Basic Traditional Principal 1, 2 & 3: The wealth offered by the land is
>owned collectively. (In fact, Australian Aboriginal people speak of "being
>owned BY" the land.) Ownership is reciprocal. All citizens have a necessary
>responsibility to maintain the health of the land.
>
> 4. Whoever is a part of the community, whether raising children, gathering
>food (from the very big living supermarket) creating technologies, building
>homes, teaching, maintaining food supplies, maintaining art and spiritual
>life, trading with other people, dealing with and settling conflict- whether
>young, middle-aged or an 'elder'- all citizens are contributing to
>Community. So community collectively ensures their survival.
>
>Meanwhile I remind you that KINSHIP and INHERITANCE are two subtle but
>significant factors in Western economic reality also- as I am noticing an
>absence of delineation of their impact in SC theoretical discussions. Note
>how Australian Aboriginal culture was dealt a near-fatal blow by its people
>being dis-allowed inheritance by Western law- not just in a poetic sense,
>but even as their economy was tied into the Western. I was shocked to learn,
>and not until I reached the hallowed halls of Tertiary Study where many
>Australians never venture, that even after Aboriginal people won the
>RIGHT to be paid for their labor (labor for the colonisers) in the mid 19th
>Century, they were legally FORBIDDEN to OWN PROPERTY (were simply not
>allowed to purchase!) This enshrined that no material wealth any Aboriginal
>person accumulated could ever be handed down to future generations. Whilst
>relatively speaking everyone else amassed fortunes over the last two
>centuries.
>
>Which in itself brings up COMPENSATION as another issue that is going to
>rear its uncomfortable head during any attempts to construct healthy
>post-colonial societies.
>
>
>
>Chick: This is and has been a problem in Canada for some time. The native
>or aboriginal children were forcibly separated from their families and
>forced to live in residential schools owned and controlled jointly by the
>different religious organizations and run by the religious organizations.
>These children were beaten if they talked their own language, talked or even
>suggested their cultures, families or anything related to who and what they
>were. And the type of torture and mental and sexual abuse that was forced
>upon these people, these children, is absolutely incomprehensible. The
>worst part is that it was all done in the name of God and yes, Christianity.
>At this moment the trials and negotiations are still going on but some of
>the churches, together with the government, have already been ordered to pay
>millions of dollars in restitution to the former residence.
>
>
>
>It is amazing to me as well how Europeans could just move in to a country
>like China and in their own country; the Chinese people were restricted from
>interrelating with the foreigners or even entering into certain
>establishments, restricted by sings such as, "No Dogs or Chinese Allowed."
>
>SUE: Another discourse which throws light on these discussions was provided
>in the Australian Financial Review (20/9/02)- the theories of Alfredo
>Pareto (Italian, end of 19C...) about Western style economiesa especially
>the phenomenum known as the 'Pareto distribution'. Are you familiar with
>this? Apparently computer modelling has now proved it to be absolutely
>accurate ("Mathematically, a small fraction of the wealthiest people always
>possesses a lion's share of a country's riches...." etc. This article was so
>compelling that I'll have to share a bit more of it in future- is anyone
>familiar with this work already?
>
>
>
>Chick: This is not a person of which I am aware; is it possible to forward a
>website or book name in which we could get some research.
>
>
>
>Chick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:28 PM
>Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Thoughts/lessons from history and indigenous
>economics for
>
>
>I have been wondering as I read these discussions if anyone has included
>the 'institution' of Inheritance?
>
>Will it still apply in the Social Credit Utopia?
>
>Having lived in Australia for a while, I've been able to absorb some sense
>of the indigenous cultural values which probably hold true for other
>indigenous people's of the world. So while I completely support Chick's
>suggestions of a positive and nurture-based vision,(and as I read further
>messages before posting I now see you have expanded on this) the statement:
>" The individual is the most important factor in organized society, with
>both spiritual and physical potentials and needs and has certain
>inalienable rights and responsibilities within society which must be
>respected and preserved." I feel something has been
>under-articulated...although your second clause may be hinting at the same
>thing as I now will..
>
>In indigenous cultures- certainly here in Australia- an individual from the
>time of birth is tied into a complex and significant web of relationships.
>The social identity of mother, father, uncles, grandmothers, etc.; the
>position occupied by the person in the sequence of their siblings, the age
>of the individual at any given time, the number of children successfully
>reared by that person (especially in the case of women), and other types of
>initiations proceeded through- all these and many more relationships
>factor the status, obligations, and seniority of said person and expected
>ability to assist in governing others. In other words its about kinship,
>not just individualism.
>
>Australia was so recently settled by Western colonisers that some of us
>here feel we have a (God given? Destined?) opportunity to seek to re-piece
>together remaining clues as to how an intact place-defined community would
>function...meaning a community basing its law and spirituality on
>relationship with 'Country' (respect for place)- and I myself look to these
>partially imagined indigenous communities whenever I wish to envision a
>sane, caring world. Not wishing to romanticise indigenous cultures, just
>being open to learn from their values and practices, whether or not I would
>wholly emulate any particulaar practice. It's all about hybridity now,
>folks..and we Westerners ar not going to apprehend so much that is
>valuable.! But it is these discernable principals that _I_ would base the
>organisation of a fair and functioning society.
>
>Basic Traditional Principal 1, 2 & 3: The wealth offered by the land is
>owned collectively.(In fact, Australian Aboriginal people speak of "being
>owned BY" the land.) Ownership is reciprocal. All citizens have a necessary
>responsibility to maintain the health of the land.
>
> 4. Whoever is a part of the community, whether raising children, gathering
>food (from the very big living supermarket) creating technologies, building
>homes, teaching, maintaining food supplies, maintaining art and spiritual
>life,trading with other people, dealing with and settling conflict- whether
>young, middle-aged or an 'elder'- all citizens are contributing to
>Community. So community collectively ensures their survival.
>
>Meanwhile I remind you that KINSHIP and INHERITANCE are two subtle but
>significant factors in Western economic reality also- as I am noticing an
>absence of delineation of their impact in SC theoretical discussions. Note
>how Australian Aboriginal culture was dealt a near-fatal blow by its people
>being dis-allowed inheritance by Western law- not just in a poetic sense,
>but even as their economy was tied into the Western. I was shocked to
>learn, and not until I reached the hallowed halls of Tertiary Study where
>many Australians never venture, that even after Aboriginal people won the
>RIGHT to be paid for their labor (labor for the colonisers) in the mid 19th
>Century, they were legally FORBIDDEN to OWN PROPERTY (were simply not
>allowed to purchase!) This enshrined that no material wealth any Aboriginal
>person accumulated could ever be handed down to future generations. Whilst
>relatively speaking everyone else amassed fortunes over the last two
>centuries.
>
>Which in itself brings up COMPENSATION as another issue that is going to
>rear its uncomfortable head during any attempts to construct healthy
>post-colonial societies.
>
>Another discourse which throws light on these discussions was provided in
>the Australian Financial Review (20/9/02)-
> the theories of Alfredo Pareto (Italian, end of 19C...) about Western
>style economiesa especially the phenomenum known as the 'Pareto
>distribution'. Are you familiar with this? Apparently computer modelling
>has now proved it to be absolutely accurate ("Mathematically, a small
>fraction of the wealthiest people always posess a lion's share of a
>country's riches...." etc. This article was so compelling that I'll have to
>share a bit more of it in future- is anyone familiar with this work already?
>
>Food for thought. Sue
>
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^================================================================
