It's funny that I'm continuing this blog. I initially began this blog as a course project. Now, here it is a couple of years later and again I'm utilizing this crazy medium to produce a thought or two. Hopefully I can make this a more productive experience as opposed to sounding vitriolic about what is a historical reality. Yet, in saying this, in no way am I seeking to down-play my initial beliefs about why we are in the suck-y economic, domestic, opportunistic and life-stressing times we now find ourselves in. I say this because after having re-read what I wrote then I am now wondering today how it is that people still "buy into" this notion that unconscionable capitalism is beneficial to all while in fact it is geared to benefit a limited few.
As eternally baffling as the question of why people allow their lives to be dictated to by a human-contrived, self-indulgent concept as destructive as modern consumerism-consumptionism is, I am just as perplexed at the lack of thorough knowledge of history, in particular the importance of Crees, Blackfoot/Blackfeet, Ojibway, Mohawk, Huron, Seneca, and on and on (the "Indians" for those who understand the layman's language) within North American history. Apologies to those in South America, but, therein too one might find evidence to support the notion that there is a definite lack in Western based knowledge systems in that they fail to actually tell things like they are. Of course this supports the status quo. That's the whole point of why I'm writing, and for my prior rant some time ago.
Is there a definite unappreciation of the "Indian" within Western society? Depends... If you are to take a serious look at history one can find evidence to the effect that the "Indian" was utterly indispensible throughout the early history of contact between cultures. And those whom got to know the "Indian" very well, as did the Canadien, Metis, Voyageur among others, found that they were all very distinct groups and organized themselves into very practical societies (what would later be called councils). Like there were any official singular authority that could designate them thus! It was at the choosing of the people to organize and live that way. That is the definition of a free and independent nation is it not? That it is the people who decide such things? And, the federal government here would have us believe that we were not such a people by continually treating us as wards of the state. As if there is any sense in what the government has done historically, especially ever since it began to appropriate lands without the "Indians" consent (I.E. Ruperts Land being sold off to the Dominion of Canada without any say on the parts of those who actually lived there).
That swindle is par for the course because it only follows suit with the utter thanklessness on the parts of Europeans for "Indians" literally saving their lives, livelihoods, and future imperial aspirations. Without our knowledge they would have died off en masse. There are those elders who have let slip that maybe that should have been the case considering how so much knowledge was stolen and capitalized on without due credit being given to those whose knowledge it was in the first place (I.E. snow shoes, how to avoid getting scurvy, existing in the coldest of climes, etc.). And, yet, the stereotype still persists that we were savage, dirty, filthy heathens. I wonder if people who believe this crap actually put some thought into that last bit of bullshit. Europeans of the time (fur trade/Victorian eras) were grossly disgusting because it was considered normal to not bath for years at a time. Why on earth did the European interest in foreign scents and perfumes develop?... Because they stank! That's why. There are reports on how amazed Traders were at seeing how clean the "Indians" were. They continually cleansed themselves via swimming, sweats, outdoor living, and deliberate ritualized segregating practices. It does not follow that the "Indian" was any more dirty than his European counterpart. In fact the opposite is true. These days it is a personal choice, more than ever, how a person chooses to appear.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Oka Crisis - How Canada is Maintaining the Status Quo
Here is the coverage on this "crisis", as reported by Peter Mansbridge. At least the content is un-edited. Maybe for those who think that is not relevant, or in the past, please reconsider. I would disagreed, as would probably numerous other first nations people. To speak in historical terms, if it weren't for the past efforts on the parts of Aboriginals and the literal inability of Europeans and their descendents to survive in this country Western society (I.E. North America) simply would not exist as it is today.
Why are we putting up with White Male Patriarchal Systems?
I am revising my earlier words regarding issues of globalization. Maybe I should distinguish between differing kinds of globalization first and then elaborate on a more structured argument around current "illnesses" within Western society that have come out of more modern variants of globalization. Well, then, to that end I will begin by stating that historically 'globalization' and empire building can be seen as being synonymous in terms of their effects on "Other" cultures, if not in their literal meanings. This "historical globalization" has, in my view, a direct correlation with the pre-dominating world view actively influencing world history throughout the 15th - 19th centuries. While I will not go into any great detail about the history of Nationalism and world empire building by European powers, I will say this about it, that: a few whites sought a dominant position over foreign, "alien" Others, and thereby desired copious amounts of power and prestige stemming from relationships that were lopsided in terms of whom was the group benefitting more from the arrangement. It is no secret that many historical figures in pre-Victorian, Victorian and post-Victorian ages have sought to enshire their achievements at the behest of many a people. So much so, in fact, that the discovery and rape of the entire "New World" can be seen to be attributable to the selfish ambitions of a few zealots.
This is getting more to the root of the matter of modern consumer-based, capitalist-sustaining globalization, and what I consider are the evils of it. Anglo-protestant, European/Western patriarchy and those institutions and ideologies it relies upon for power are very discriminatory. Only a select few, and only those whom are the epitomes of 'successful capitalism', can aspire to the heights of enjoying the privileges of belonging to the caste which keeps that power to itself. I call it a caste system because that is exactly what has developed. Surely one cannot hope to think that they can ascend into a higher social circle if he/she does not emulate the mannerisms and values of those in power? Is resistance futile, as the Borg of "Star Trek" fame so aptly coined? What has perpetuated is a cyclical abuse of human-kind, the environment and mother earth herself. In very self serving fashion, white male patriarchy actively sustains a homogenous way of looking at the world. Anything, be it a culture, means of subsistence, form of indigenous thought, etc. that defies "easy" assimilation within white patriarchal institutions is immediately regarded as some 'savage', 'uncivilized', 'unlearned' OTHER.
Europeans, and their descendents, approached this New World with a specific mindsets and purposes. Industrialization, and the advent of modern world conveniences, gave rise to institutions whose very existences rested upon patriarchal systems of education, organization, historical worldviews (i.e. 1492 and Columbus), government and population control. There is no denying that industrialization was the result of major accomplishments in science, physics and chemistry. However, there is also no denying that industrialization, and the ambitions of a few blue bloods, created situations where the most savage, barbaric and uncivilized treatment of people in European, New World, Asian and African lands could occur and be argued to be the "natural course of things". It makes one wonder if Darwin actually meant that his "Origins of the Species" was meant to be made applicable to the human species? Or, similarly, one can ask if his scientific perspectives were intentionally taken out of context in order to justify the exploitation of the world's resources and its peoples?
For example, where in any indigenous culture found in any part of the world is there as much disregard for elders, their wisdom and health as that which exists in Western industrialized nations? Admittance rates of elderly people into nursing homes, because they are seen as feeble, senile, and more trouble than they are worth, are testaments to copious amounts of disregard accorded them in old age. This is in stark contrast to those societies which care for and regard with increasing amounts of esteem their own elders. At least indigenous people care for their elders at home and do not leave their welfare up to strangers to deal with, which is regarded as the more barbaric practice by most natives. Further, where else in the world would you have found a situation where child labor was regarded as 'good for business'? Or, how about the fact that women were not even regarded as people, in the eyes of the law? They were chattel, to be used by and for men (ie: fathers and husbands). And yet, when women in indigenous cultures spoke their own minds during cultural clashes (the abominable period of colonization) because it was they, not the men, who actually "owned" the land, they were overtly ignored and actively relegated to positions of inferiority. Who then is the more 'uncivilized' and 'savage'?
The other question that I have always asked is this: "What gives white patriarchs, and the institutions they've created, pre-eminence over all other forms of culture, knowledge and indigenous rights in various regions all over the world?" Is the so-called "White Man's Burden" a contrived set of beliefs whose aim is to vindicate perpetual acts of plunder, rape, pillage and exploitation? It was a widely accepted belief that the "White Man's Burden" was a moral obligation for Europeans to go out and civilize the savage heathens of the New, Asian and African worlds. Yet, for all the sanctimonious and presumptuous rhetoric their tactics belied the true nature of the enterprise - usurping foreign lands and undermining long established cultural systems of countless peoples.
Was this power sanctioned by God? I don't think so. The French Revolution has answered the question of the absolutist sentiments of the Divine Right of Kings (a major patriarchal institution) some 300 years ago. Was this power given by the Church? Again, nothing could be more problematic. The belief that the Church is infallible is an illusion. This is because the Church itself is a man-made creation. It has been very war-like (ie: the Crusades), laden with its own history of corruption (ie: the issues of indulgences and simony in the 16th Century), and been very un-Christ like in the practice of its teachings. As Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) has said, "There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, and Politics without principle". And, on each of these counts the Church has sinned in every respect. It is no wonder why he also stated "I like your Christ, he is like our prophet Mohammed. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ".
This leaves the question of technology as an explanation for white patriarchy. Actually, this is no explanation. It is only a tool of this errant belief system. It both helped to create and perpetuate it. Whereas there are those who believe in Whites superiority and in the inevitability of Whites to dominate in all spheres of life owing to technological innovation the fact remains that modern technology, and the current producer/consumer mentality upon which economic theory desparately maintains as the basis of all modern developments, actively threatens all processes of life (ie: the Bolivian fight against water privatization, corporate psychopathy, and climate change). Technological innovation acts to subjugate humans' survival capabilities. Of course, not all technological developments are indictable. Only those which seek persecution of people who dare to interfere with market shares and who dare to provide for their own needs in the face of growing corporatization and global economic callusion.
This is why I feel the need to demand that we abolish private property, once and for all. People need food, clothing and shelter more than a few privileged others need protection for such things as: intellectual property rights, trademarks, corporate sponsorship, financial kickbacks and cornering the market on certain commodities. Of course, privileged white patriarchies are so deeply entrenched in all these areas that it is also necessary to demand an end to these futile systems. Since when does all the world resemble that which white patriarchies created for themselves? Abolish their privileged statuses and leave solving of the world's problems up to the citizens of the world.
This is getting more to the root of the matter of modern consumer-based, capitalist-sustaining globalization, and what I consider are the evils of it. Anglo-protestant, European/Western patriarchy and those institutions and ideologies it relies upon for power are very discriminatory. Only a select few, and only those whom are the epitomes of 'successful capitalism', can aspire to the heights of enjoying the privileges of belonging to the caste which keeps that power to itself. I call it a caste system because that is exactly what has developed. Surely one cannot hope to think that they can ascend into a higher social circle if he/she does not emulate the mannerisms and values of those in power? Is resistance futile, as the Borg of "Star Trek" fame so aptly coined? What has perpetuated is a cyclical abuse of human-kind, the environment and mother earth herself. In very self serving fashion, white male patriarchy actively sustains a homogenous way of looking at the world. Anything, be it a culture, means of subsistence, form of indigenous thought, etc. that defies "easy" assimilation within white patriarchal institutions is immediately regarded as some 'savage', 'uncivilized', 'unlearned' OTHER.
Europeans, and their descendents, approached this New World with a specific mindsets and purposes. Industrialization, and the advent of modern world conveniences, gave rise to institutions whose very existences rested upon patriarchal systems of education, organization, historical worldviews (i.e. 1492 and Columbus), government and population control. There is no denying that industrialization was the result of major accomplishments in science, physics and chemistry. However, there is also no denying that industrialization, and the ambitions of a few blue bloods, created situations where the most savage, barbaric and uncivilized treatment of people in European, New World, Asian and African lands could occur and be argued to be the "natural course of things". It makes one wonder if Darwin actually meant that his "Origins of the Species" was meant to be made applicable to the human species? Or, similarly, one can ask if his scientific perspectives were intentionally taken out of context in order to justify the exploitation of the world's resources and its peoples?
For example, where in any indigenous culture found in any part of the world is there as much disregard for elders, their wisdom and health as that which exists in Western industrialized nations? Admittance rates of elderly people into nursing homes, because they are seen as feeble, senile, and more trouble than they are worth, are testaments to copious amounts of disregard accorded them in old age. This is in stark contrast to those societies which care for and regard with increasing amounts of esteem their own elders. At least indigenous people care for their elders at home and do not leave their welfare up to strangers to deal with, which is regarded as the more barbaric practice by most natives. Further, where else in the world would you have found a situation where child labor was regarded as 'good for business'? Or, how about the fact that women were not even regarded as people, in the eyes of the law? They were chattel, to be used by and for men (ie: fathers and husbands). And yet, when women in indigenous cultures spoke their own minds during cultural clashes (the abominable period of colonization) because it was they, not the men, who actually "owned" the land, they were overtly ignored and actively relegated to positions of inferiority. Who then is the more 'uncivilized' and 'savage'?
The other question that I have always asked is this: "What gives white patriarchs, and the institutions they've created, pre-eminence over all other forms of culture, knowledge and indigenous rights in various regions all over the world?" Is the so-called "White Man's Burden" a contrived set of beliefs whose aim is to vindicate perpetual acts of plunder, rape, pillage and exploitation? It was a widely accepted belief that the "White Man's Burden" was a moral obligation for Europeans to go out and civilize the savage heathens of the New, Asian and African worlds. Yet, for all the sanctimonious and presumptuous rhetoric their tactics belied the true nature of the enterprise - usurping foreign lands and undermining long established cultural systems of countless peoples.
Was this power sanctioned by God? I don't think so. The French Revolution has answered the question of the absolutist sentiments of the Divine Right of Kings (a major patriarchal institution) some 300 years ago. Was this power given by the Church? Again, nothing could be more problematic. The belief that the Church is infallible is an illusion. This is because the Church itself is a man-made creation. It has been very war-like (ie: the Crusades), laden with its own history of corruption (ie: the issues of indulgences and simony in the 16th Century), and been very un-Christ like in the practice of its teachings. As Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) has said, "There are seven sins in the world: Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience, Knowledge without character, Commerce without morality, Science without humanity, Worship without sacrifice, and Politics without principle". And, on each of these counts the Church has sinned in every respect. It is no wonder why he also stated "I like your Christ, he is like our prophet Mohammed. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ".
This leaves the question of technology as an explanation for white patriarchy. Actually, this is no explanation. It is only a tool of this errant belief system. It both helped to create and perpetuate it. Whereas there are those who believe in Whites superiority and in the inevitability of Whites to dominate in all spheres of life owing to technological innovation the fact remains that modern technology, and the current producer/consumer mentality upon which economic theory desparately maintains as the basis of all modern developments, actively threatens all processes of life (ie: the Bolivian fight against water privatization, corporate psychopathy, and climate change). Technological innovation acts to subjugate humans' survival capabilities. Of course, not all technological developments are indictable. Only those which seek persecution of people who dare to interfere with market shares and who dare to provide for their own needs in the face of growing corporatization and global economic callusion.
This is why I feel the need to demand that we abolish private property, once and for all. People need food, clothing and shelter more than a few privileged others need protection for such things as: intellectual property rights, trademarks, corporate sponsorship, financial kickbacks and cornering the market on certain commodities. Of course, privileged white patriarchies are so deeply entrenched in all these areas that it is also necessary to demand an end to these futile systems. Since when does all the world resemble that which white patriarchies created for themselves? Abolish their privileged statuses and leave solving of the world's problems up to the citizens of the world.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Severn Suzuki's speech at UN meeting in Brazil
This is a powerful and insightful speech that incriminates all first world countries for their callous disregard for the planet, people far less off than the richest, and the plundering of resources for financial gain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5qOUsUH_44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5qOUsUH_44
Tansi N'totemtik
Ahow, Singonyas Nihtsikason. Oncikiskwapawinihk ohci niya. Kiskinohamatowikamik anohc ekawiya. Lethbridge mistahi kiskinohamatowikamikohk ana. John nohtawiya ekwa Martha nihkawiya ihtsikasowak. Jonathan nikosisa ekwa Eloise nitanisa ihtsikasowak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Washing Windows at Residential Schools
Terrified at 4 Storeys
