ELL: Re: Waiver

Sean O Seaghdha Sean at urania.apana.org.au
Mon Oct 4 07:03:02 UTC 1999

id PAA13301
To: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: carmen.murdoch.edu.au: majodomo set sender to
owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au using -f
From: "Sean O Seaghdha" <Sean at urania.apana.org.au>
Organization: Procrastination Might Be Us (One Day)
To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 17:03:02 +1000
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: ELL: Re: Waiver
In-reply-to: <005701bf0dfe$5dbbb460$a4a8f5d1 at mnchs1.ct.home.com>
X-LINE1: ABCDEF0123456789
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by carmen.murdoch.edu.au
id PAA13301
Sender: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au

Ar 3 Oct 99, ag 17:21 scr.obh Henry Szymonik
f.n .bhar "Re: ELL: Re: Waiver [please disrega":

> Matthew was using the logic that since all the missionaries
> he sees that are abusive are white, then all white missionaries
> are abusive.

I think Matthew has fairly well put his point that evangelism is
inherently abusive.  The people he is having the most problems with
are white North Americans, so it is perfectly understandable that
these are the people he is most angry about.  He is not having
problems with Islamic missionaries, whatever mischief they may be up

It is also perfectly understandable that a person raised in a western
christian culture should feel able (and maybe duty-bound) to
criticise its abuses.  Would you feel better if Matthew were
criticising *other* cultures and if so, what does that say about your
own biases?

Maybe it would be interesting to know how many of the people pursuing
the "few bad apples" argument are committed christians themselves?
Or maybe it would clarify the debate a little if we actually stated
whether we think that people from a rich, technological, colonial
culture forcing their religion on poor, indigineous peoples is
abusive or not?

I think it is.

> I don't know why he has seen no black/Hispanic/Native
> American missionaries, but I was saying that Matthew
> should look at other reasons than race.  I gave a possible
> example that perhaps the groups that send missionaries
> to places like Thailand are racist and do not accept
> non-whites in their ranks.   It was just a hypothetical.
> Does anyone have more concrete reasons for why
> Matthew only sees whites?  Perhaps it is something
> as simple as the denominations involved are rooted
> in mostly white areas.  In the U.S., for example, the
> Mormon church is based in Utah, which is 94% white,
> so it makes sense that most Mormons who go abroad
> on mission are white.

That hardly makes their destruction of another culture justified, now
does it?

 S e . n   .   S . a g h d h a                   sean at urania.apana.org.au

 An t. at. thuas .ltar deoch air, ach an t. at. th.os lu.tear cos air.

								endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
								Web pages
								and other
								majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au

More information about the Endangered-languages-l mailing list