How's your library Keith?
The issue with all of this is that it is inaccurate. I grew up
in an indigenous community. My sister is Aleut and an
actress with the likes of Peter Brook, Andre Serban etc.
has played Clytemnestra with them, helped bring a Aleut
Antigone from Upik to New York City and critical acclaim.
There is a lot of misery and most of it has to do with the
private sector of non-indian society. They preach and sell
laziness. It is easier to live in a pre-fab house than to deal
with snow but it is not necessarily smarter. It is also easier
to become an addicted consumer surrounded by a culture
that raises buying to a sacred act.
We have a wonderful piece from Alaska written by the
winner of the Lerner and Lowe Award on Broadway from
a prize winning book about the Inuit on a rock in the
Bering Sea called King Island. They had made both
Christmas and the Native Religion a part of their lives
and one year they carried their long boat over the
thousand foot rock to the other side of the Island to
save Christmas. It was threatened by the ship bringing
the Priest and supplies being cut off by the ice.
David Friedman and Deborah Brevoort wrote the book
and music and presented it to a group of Broadway
folks. One person found great problems with the fact that
there was so much positiveness in the work and thus
no "conflict." I caught her at the elevator and explained
that the Inuit consider positiveness as essential to
keeping the blood flowing so the body won't freeze.
There is a famous song of the Inuit sailor cut off from
the land by a 100 mile iceberg broken away and
pushing him out to sea. It begins with "The great sea
has cast me adrift" and describes the situation and
ends with "and fills my heart with joy." His discipline
would not allow him to take the negative route.
She informed me that she knew better because her
husband had spent a couple of weeks in Alaska.
What could I say?
REH
Keith Hudson wrote:
> Regarding Ed Weick's latest contribution:
>
> <<<<
> What is sad about 'progress', or whatever one wants to call it, is that
> something is gained but something is also lost. Some fifty years ago, the
> Inuit of northern Canada still lived migratory lives on the land. An
> anthropologist friend told me that on northern Baffin Island, where he
> spent a year among them, they had some seventy different words for snow.
> Inuit now live in fixed villages. They still venture out in hunting
> parties, but do not spend nearly as much time on the land as they once did.
> Many young Inuit can barely speak their language, let alone name snow in
> seventy different ways. In our Indian villages, I've seen old grannies
> scold children in the native language, which the children no longer
> understand, and besides, it's alright to ignore old grannies now. At one
> time, it was strictly taboo. The gains have been many. The ill-mannered
> children stand a much greater chance of survival to a ripe old age, being
> educated (as we understand education) and earning a good living than their
> ancestors of even a generation ago. Yet much that is irreplaceable has
> also been lost. That is the price people pay, usually without knowing it,
> for something they think we are getting without any real idea of what it is.
> >>>>
>
> I'm not so sure about all this. I used to think the same as Ed. I think,
> now, that this point of view romanticises our ancestors. I rather think
> that if their society had been as natural/stable/satisfying as is often
> implied then it would have been a great deal more robust when faced with
> modern society. True, in many places, indigenous society and modern
> settlers both needed the same land and couldn't possibly co-exist, but in
> many other places the original culture could have survived more or less
> intact if they'd wanted it to. Instead, when faced with all the gewgaws
> and temptations (including strong liquor) that modern man had to offer,
> then most indigenous societies folded up quite quickly -- voluntarily, as
> it were.
>
> For better or for worse, we recreate society much as it was before whenever
> we have passed through technological/economic change. OK, we might well
> lose picturesque customs and metaphors (such as 7 or 70 different names of
> snow -- and it's important for scholarly reasons that records are kept of
> these), but we recreate new ones which are equivalent. In England during
> the last couple of centuries the typical medieval village has entirely
> disappeared and there has been much wailing and nashing of teeth about its
> demise. But in its place today a vigorous and attractive new type of
> village is emerging -- together with modern equivalents of ancient customs.
>
> The important features of man and society are not the customs and
> ceremonials but the fact that we are at one and the same time a creature
> that is capable of being both viciously cruel and selfish but also helpful
> and altruistic (a form of sensible long-term selfishness). Given a
> sufficiently long period of economic stability, then most societies learn
> to accommodate both extremes within some similar sort of "democratic"
> society. In doing so, they will decorate their procedures with newly
> developed customs and ceremonials which are useful to keep most of the
> population (which normally doesn't want to think things out for itself) on
> track. But let's not sanctify these customs. They're useful as pedagogic
> devices and it's sad when they start disappearing ('cos this signifies
> change -- always uncomfortable), but they don't have anywhere the basic
> importance that some intellectuals give to them.
>
> (I haven't written to Futurework for a long time -- it's good to see Ray
> and Ed slanging it out still.)
>
> Keith
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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]
> ________________________________________________________________________
