On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Neil Alasdair McEwan wrote:
> So
> again, what would be the difference between an immigrant to the Highlands
> learning Gaelic and an immigrant to New Zealand learning Maori? I ask
> the question because someone else rather disturbingly suggested that it
> is OK for non-Europeans to do whatever they want to defend their
> cultures -- even to the point of shutting out outsiders -- but not for
> Europeans. As someone trying to reclaim his endangered but undoubtedly
> European language and culture, I can't agree with this double-standard for
> obvious reasons.
I want to get my point straight in order to avoid sterile
'you-said-that-I-said-that-he-said-that-you-had-said'-style rhetoric.
I think Peter
Keegan's point
was aggressively
received (I
suspect
why, but won't
go into that)
and that some of
the participants
here simply
could not accept
that someone
from an
endengered
language/culture
stands
up and says
"hands-off our
culture". While
we may not like
this, we are
blound to
respect that
decision. That's
all I wanted to
say. Now, since
the target of
this dislike was
a decision on
x-issue of
culture (it
happened to be
our daily bread
and fun, but it
could have been
fashion,
food, que se yo)
from a
non-European
group basically
toward outsiders
(let's face it:
most being
European-descent),
I simply gave an
inverse
example. I never
said it was OK
or anything like
that, as I
(perhaps
deliberately)
misquoted. I
implied that
just as that
attitude is
respected
and no German
has been asked
to justify that
(even under
dictionary
definitions),
the same should
hold for the
Maoris. That's
all; if that is
taken to be
disturbing,
maybe the fact
that it rains in
the summer, or
that it snows in
the winter might
also be
disturbing...
But my point was
elegantly
synthesized by
Rob Pensalfini,
who wrote:
> > Let me make
an analogy
to
religion. Does
it follow
from the
above that
a
> > native
American's
conversion
to
Christianity
and a white
person's
> >
conversion
to
shamanism
are equally
acceptable
(and no, I
don't mean
to
> > imply
that all
native
Americans
are
shamans)?
In the
former case
we are
> > dealing
with the
conversion
of a member
of a
colonised
people to
the
> >
dominant
religion, a
religion
whose very
aim is to
acquire
converts
from
> > all
cultures. In
the latter
case, at
least when
it involves
New Age
> >
variants
such as
sweat lodge
or drum
circle
operators
or
channellers,
I
> > think
we would
all agree
we are
dealing
with
appropriation
of beliefs,
> >
behaviours
or
knowledge
that were
not
necessarily
intended
for
widespread
> > public
(or
cross-cultural)
'consumption'. The
lack of
parallellism
becomes
> > clearer
in cases
where
sacred/secret
knowledge
is divulged
in the
interests
> > of
'enlightenment'
(e.g.:
Marlo
Morgan's
"Mutant
Mess
Downunder").
> >
> > And
before
anyone
suggests
that this
has nothing
to do with
endangered
> >
languages,
it would be
wise to
note that
language
endangerment
is always
> > (?)
accompanied
by
socio-economic
donimation
and, in
turn,
ethnic or
> >
cultural
endagerment.
Rob definitely hit the nail on the head. This is why some of the
comments made on this list this week in reference to Keegan's stand strike
me as rather cynical, namely "you can always say no". In vertical power
relations this is illusory. While linguist a, or y, or z, and perhaps all
field workers have no ill intentions toward the endangered groups we work
with, it is far beyond reasonable doubt that the historical context in
which field work has taken place has been one of dominance (for
ill-sighted: this is where world politics intersects with language/culture
endangerment). The pioneers of field work were who? No more and no less
than missionaires, and missionary work in general only occurs in vertical
power relations: have you ever seen a Hixkaryana speaker coming to New
York City to shamanize the natives? The rationale behind missionary work
is that "my religion (and all it stands for as well as all that stand
behind it) are superior to you(rs), and thus I come here to
invite/ask/force/coerce -as the need dictates- to give all that
uncivilized way of life and adopt mine". Again that only happens in
vertical relations.
What I mean is that although we as field
workers may develop a certain affection toward the groups we work with, in
most cases our work takes place in a context of domination: again, no
Bribri linguist (or language fan) comes to Paris and talks to the City
Chief so he can get help in getting some informants. It is that system of
domination that makes possible that we go to "the field". Why blind
ourselves to that?
Finally, for those who choose the easy way out of saying "simply
say no", it is more than clear that the Maori concept of birthright
***IS*** their way of saying no. Let's respect that, and that respect can
be shown by refraining from asking rather arrogantly "hey, why do you
think so?!" as if culture should be justified.
Cambio y fuera
DQ.
----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
----